A demonstration proves that our software runs on our building. It proves nothing about yours. So we do something slower and considerably more convincing: we model a scheme you have already paid a consultancy to assess, and you hold the two documents next to each other.
You have a filing cabinet — or a SharePoint folder — full of assessments you paid real money for, produced by people you chose, on buildings you know intimately. You know where those studies were thin. You know which assumptions you would argue with now. That is a far better test set than anything we could construct.
It is also the test we have run on ourselves. This system was built by rebuilding a published £25,000 consultancy study clause by clause, and the single most valuable thing that exercise produced was not agreement — it was the run where our own model came back complete, clean and catastrophically wrong.
If our document is worse than the one you already have, that is a short conversation and you have lost an afternoon. We would rather find that out early than sell past it.
Thirty to forty-five minutes with someone who can answer technical questions properly. What you model today, what it costs you, where the bottleneck actually is, and which jurisdictions you work in. Some of those answers rule us out immediately, and we will say so on that call rather than three meetings later.
No preparation needed.You pick a scheme that has already been assessed. We model it, run it and produce the full document — figures, criteria, findings, gaps and all. You compare it against the study you paid for, on a building where you already know the right answer. This is the stage that decides everything, and it is where our register tends to say uncomfortable things about both documents.
Scoped on the first call. Turnaround depends on the scheme.A bounded period on real projects with real deadlines, with your engineers driving and us close at hand. This is where you find out whether it fits how your practice actually works — which is a different question from whether the physics is right, and the one that usually decides adoption.
Scoped to a defined number of schemes and a fixed window.White-label setup, document templates matched to your house conventions, sign-off roles, and the deployment model your data policy requires — hosted, your own cloud tenancy, or an appliance inside your network. Then training for the engineers who will use it daily.
Licence term agreed here, not before.Being direct about the second list saves everybody a quarter.
Fire engineering practices and multidisciplinary consultancies running smoke control, tenability and means-of-escape analysis on UK and Irish schemes. Teams producing enough studies that the setup-and-document overhead is a real cost. Anyone who has been asked to defend a modelling assumption to an approver and found the answer harder to reconstruct than it should have been.
Anyone needing a jurisdiction we have not encoded — the physics transfers, the acceptance criteria do not. Anyone wanting a tool that produces a favourable answer on request; the register is not configurable per project and that is the entire point. And anyone expecting to remove the engineer from the process. The document still needs someone qualified to sign it.
There is no checkout on this site, and that is deliberate rather than a gap in the build. What a licence costs depends on how many schemes you run, at what resolution, on whose infrastructure, with what white-label scope and over what term — and those are questions with genuinely different answers per practice.
What we can say up front: we prefer multi-year terms and price them accordingly, annual commitment carries a discount over monthly, and white-label setup is quoted as a scoped one-off rather than folded in and pretended to be free. The pricing section sets out the structure and lets you size it before you speak to anyone.
We would rather lose a deal on price stated early than win one on a number that turns out to be wrong at renewal.
No, and a version that tried would be unsellable. It removes the setup, meshing, babysitting and document assembly between a question and something worth arguing about. A competent engineer still reads it, disagrees with parts of it and signs it.
You read the finding, which names the number it examined, and you make a professional judgement. Findings can be overruled — that is legitimate. What the system will not do is let a blocker pass silently, because a decision to proceed against a finding should look like a decision in the record.
Yes, and for some schemes that is the only acceptable answer. It is built as a single-tenant appliance rather than a shared platform with isolation retrofitted, so on-premises is a first-class deployment rather than a special case.
You do not take our word for it — that is what the comparison stage is for. There is also a validation dossier and a full specimen report you can read before speaking to us at all.
A small team, honestly described on the about page. We do not have a wall of client logos and we are not going to invent one. What we have is a working system, a set of measured failures we published rather than buried, and a comparison we will run on your own scheme.
Tell us about a building you have already had assessed and what you thought of the study. That single question tends to be worth more than an hour of slides — for both of us.