Make resilience claims provable.
Climate risk markets are moving from broad scores to decisions that affect premiums, capital, and public policy. ForceShield is a proposed common evidence layer for asset-level resilience: factor-by-factor, cited, reproducible, and built so owners can see and improve the record.
The gap
The market is pricing resilience before it can consistently prove it.
Insurers and regulators need to know whether a mitigation claim is real: what was observed, what standard it maps to, and what changed after the owner acted.
Composite risk scores can be useful, but they are weak evidence on their own. They rarely show which factor drove the result or which source supports it.
Owners are often the only party able to reduce the risk, yet they may never see the evidence record or know which changes will be recognized.
The framework
A shared evidence layer between observation, mitigation, and credit.
ForceShield proposes a simple contract: every resilience factor should carry its source, method, version, and observation history. The owner can understand the finding, act on it, and seek recognition for verified improvement. Carriers and regulators can inspect the evidence behind the claim instead of accepting a black-box score.
Who it serves
A common record for parties that usually see different fragments.
Regulators & standards peers
A practical evidence reference for mitigation claims: factor-level citations, reproducible methods, and a governance model designed for public scrutiny.
Engage with the initiative
Insurers (as participants)
A vendor-neutral way to check resilience inputs, explain mitigation credit, and separate observed property conditions from opaque model outputs.
Follow / participate
Researchers & academia
A path toward consented, aggregated observations that can test which mitigations actually reduce loss and feed findings back into standards.
Contribute / collaborate
Property owners
A clearer record of what was observed, what can be improved, and what changed after mitigation — with owner-controlled contribution of owner-sourced data.
Learn how it works
Partners & foundations
A public-interest infrastructure effort focused on making resilience evidence reusable, auditable, and governed outside a single vendor.
Partner with us
Insurers appear here as participants in a standard intended to be vendor-neutral — never as sales targets. The commercial conversation lives on riskscan.ai.
Principles
What has to be true for the evidence to matter.
Open, citable standards
Every factor traces to a published source anyone can read.
Owner-controlled disclosure
For the data the owner controls and contributes, the owner decides what is shared, with whom, and for what purpose — opt-in, withdrawable on bounded terms. Owner consent is necessary for owner-sourced data, but it is not sole authority: insurer-held and third-party-licensed records also require their controller’s approval — a per-source rights check.
Per-factor transparency
No opaque composite scores; each factor carries its own evidence.
Empirical feedback into standards
With the owner’s explicit consent, aggregated and privacy-protected observations flow back into what is proposed on paper. Consent plus aggregation are the basis — anonymization alone is not.
Evidence & standards approach
The standard is the audit trail, not another score.
Each factor points to a published authority, a reproducible method, a versioned assessment, and the rights needed for reuse. Over time, consented and privacy-protected aggregates can help test which mitigations work in the field and improve the standards themselves.
Data use & consent
Standards or research use of observations is consent-gated and limited to aggregated and privacy-protected data — designed not to re-identify. Anonymization by itself does not establish consent or authority. This is a stated design commitment for the proposed initiative, not a system that exists today.
A per-source rights check
Observations are not all owner-controlled. Before any secondary use, a per-source check is required: property-owner consent for owner-contributed data, the controller’s approval for insurer-held data, the third-party license terms for vendor-licensed data, and the rights of any affected data subjects. Owner consent alone cannot authorize research use of insurer- or vendor-controlled evidence.
Withdrawal (required before launch)
Before any standards or research use launches, the system must let an owner withdraw: stopping future secondary use and deleting the secondary-use copies and pointers under ForceShield’s control, with downstream recipients requested — and, where contractually applicable, required — to delete. Downstream deletion is requested or contractually required, never guaranteed. Already-aggregated or already-published outputs cannot be retracted. These are forthcoming requirements, not actions performed today.
Forgettability & the evidence ledger
Reconciling the right to be forgotten with an immutable, reproducible evidence ledger is an open architecture question we are working through — not a solved feature. We are studying cryptographic erasure (destroying a record’s decryption key so an entry becomes unreadable while the audit chain stays intact) and what the post-erasure contract should guarantee. We will not claim a “forget” capability until it is designed and proven.
Participate
Help turn mitigation from a claim into evidence.
ForceShield is looking for regulators, standards peers, insurers, researchers, property-owner advocates, and public-interest partners who want auditable resilience evidence to exist outside any one vendor.
Where this stands
A proposed initiative, starting with wildfire insurance.
ForceShield is an initiative founded by Tac Leung through 00 Start LLC. The evidence standard described here is a proposal we are exploring with prospective stakeholders — it has not yet been formed. The first case study is California wildfire insurance, where the market needs better proof of mitigation and clearer ways to recognize verified improvement. Transit is a planned future application.
Independence is the goal, not yet the structure.
We are working to establish independent governance — a board with members beyond 00 Start, clear decision rights, a conflicts-of-interest policy separating the steward from the commercial implementer, and an open membership process. Until then, ForceShield is a proposed initiative intended to develop that independence.
- In formation
ForceShield — the evidence standard
A proposed common evidence layer for asset-level resilience, with independent governance being developed.
- Case study
Wildfire & insurance — FireBreak
The first proving ground: California wildfire insurance, where mitigation evidence needs to be explainable to carriers, regulators, and owners.
- Planned
Transit — TransitSafe
A planned future application of the same auditable-evidence approach to transit assets.
The evidence standard and its independent governance are not yet established — we say so plainly. The applications named here carry their own honest maturity. ForceShield itself does not sell insurance products or underwriting services.
One standard, focused first on wildfire insurance