An analyst that reasons from your environment, not just the prompt.
Grounded in Live Security Context, the Exposure Analyst investigates meaningful exposure, shows the evidence behind every conclusion, recommends what to change, and repeats that analysis on demand or on a schedule, within the controls you set.
Every conclusion, traceable to the evidence behind it.
Ask why an exposure matters, what relationship makes it reachable, or whether a fix worked. The Exposure Analyst investigates using Live Security Context and keeps the evidence behind every conclusion visible.
- CSPM Internet-reachable workload
- Scanner Runs with svc-acct
- IdP svc-acct can assume role/prod-admin
- Ownership role/prod-admin reaches customer-db
Public workload → service identity → privileged access
Meaningful exposure pathReachable privileged path
Why does this exposure matter now?
Not another score. A conclusion you can interrogate.
Follow the evidence, challenge the reasoning, and decide what happens next. The conclusion becomes a Plan without losing its evidence, rationale or owner.
Agentic where it helps. Bounded where it matters.
The Exposure Analyst can investigate, draft, route and drive the work through to verified closure. Customer-defined policies determine what it may do, what permissions it receives, and where human approval is required. Accountable ownership remains visible throughout.
Unizo investigates and prepares the Plan. A person decides whether it advances.
Unizo routes and advances the work, pausing wherever customer-defined policy requires approval.
Unizo can route, follow up and re-check within configured policy without waiting at every step. The accountable owner performs the change.
Policy requires approval before the owner applies the change. Routing and tracking continue automatically.
Turn recurring analysis into governed Runs.
Define repeatable analyst work once, then run it on demand or on a schedule using the same maintained context, evidence standards, and configured controls.
The Analyst supplies the reasoning. Unizo carries the work.
The reasoning that opened the investigation travels with the work: into the Plan, through the handoff to the owner, and into the re-check that confirms the root cause is gone.
Common questions
What happens when the Analyst is wrong?
Every conclusion shows the evidence behind it, drawn from your own tools. Your team reviews the Plan before anything is routed, so a wrong conclusion is visible at the evidence rather than after a ticket lands on someone.
Does this replace our analysts?
No. It does the assembly work: gathering evidence, resolving owners, drafting the Plan, and re-checking afterwards. The judgement stays with your team, and so does every production change.
Will this create more tickets than we already have?
Fewer. Only exposures that qualify against Live Security Context become Investigations, and each one arrives with its evidence, its owner and one committed action.
Does it remember our environment, or start fresh each time?
Runs work from the same maintained context and the same evidence standards, so the picture accumulates instead of being rebuilt from scratch each time.
How is this different from asking a model about our findings?
A model answers from the prompt. The Exposure Analyst answers from Live Security Context: your assets, identities, access, ownership and change, as they are now. That is what makes a conclusion about reachability possible.
What if we disagree with a conclusion?
Follow the evidence and challenge the reasoning. Conclusions are traceable to the facts behind them, and nothing advances past the gates your policy sets.
Bring a real exposure.
Interrogate the reasoning.
The fastest way to judge an analyst is to question it about something you already understand.