AI-validated posture. Standardised assessments against recognised frameworks. Not self-reported questionnaires where every applicant ticks "yes" to everything. Real compliance data that informs risk decisions.
Every applicant ticks "yes" to "Do you have an incident response plan?" because they have a document called "Incident Response Plan" in a shared drive. Whether it reflects their actual capability, whether it's been tested, whether the people named in it are still employed - the questionnaire can't tell you. And you're underwriting against those answers.
The gap between what policyholders report and what they actually have is where claims live. An organisation that ticked "yes" to multi-factor authentication but only implemented it for email - not for VPN, not for cloud apps, not for admin accounts - is a materially different risk than one that implemented it comprehensively. But both ticked the same box.
CyberHeed provides structured compliance data that goes deeper than self-reported questionnaires. Policyholders go through AI-guided assessments that probe their actual capabilities, upload evidence that the AI validates, and maintain compliance posture data continuously. The result is risk data you can underwrite against - not assertions you have to take on faith.
The difference between CyberHeed compliance data and a standard insurance questionnaire is the difference between a medical examination and asking someone "are you healthy?"
Policyholders don't tick checkboxes. They go through 15 structured conversations covering every domain their target framework requires. The AI adapts based on their answers, follows up on vague responses, and catches inconsistencies. When someone says they have an incident response plan, the AI asks what's in it, when it was last tested, who's responsible for executing it. The result is a genuine picture of the organisation's security posture - not a self-assessment designed to get the lowest premium.
This depth of assessment is what makes the data underwritable. You're not relying on whether the applicant understood the question, interpreted it honestly, or had the knowledge to answer it accurately. The AI guides the assessment, probes for specifics, and generates a structured output that you can evaluate.
Policyholders upload actual evidence for their controls: policies, procedures, screenshots, configuration exports. The AI reads each piece of evidence, assesses whether it genuinely satisfies the control requirement, scores it 0 to 5, and provides specific feedback on what's covered and what's missing. This is validation, not verification - but it's dramatically more rigorous than self-reported questionnaires.
Every assessment is structured against internationally recognised frameworks: ISO 27001, Essential Eight, NIST CSF, CPS 234. The controls are defined. The assessment criteria are consistent. The output is comparable across policyholders. When two organisations both claim ISO 27001 compliance, you can see exactly how their postures differ - control by control, domain by domain.
A policyholder's current compliance state tells you part of the story. Their trajectory tells you the rest. Are they improving, stagnating, or deteriorating? That's underwriting intelligence a point-in-time assessment can never provide.
Think about what trajectory data means for your risk models. Two policyholders at 60% control coverage look identical in a point-in-time assessment. But one was at 40% six months ago (improving) and the other was at 80% six months ago (declining). Those are fundamentally different risk profiles - and only trajectory data reveals the difference. This is the kind of signal that can differentiate your underwriting from competitors who rely on static questionnaires.
CyberHeed tracks every policyholder's compliance posture continuously - not just at renewal. You can see how their maturity has changed since they first started using the platform. An organisation that was at 40% control coverage six months ago and is now at 75% is a fundamentally different risk profile than one that's been at 60% for two years. Current state alone doesn't capture that distinction. Trajectory does.
Overall maturity is useful. Domain-level maturity is actionable. Maybe a policyholder has strong access control but weak incident response. Maybe their business continuity planning improved dramatically after a near-miss event. The granularity lets you assess risk at the domain level - where cyber incidents actually happen - not just at the organisational level.
Declining maturity is a leading indicator. When a policyholder's compliance posture starts deteriorating - overdue tasks, expiring evidence, unaddressed gaps - you see it before it becomes an incident. That's the kind of signal that transforms underwriting from backward-looking risk assessment to forward-looking risk management.
Which frameworks has the policyholder been assessed against? What's their maturity in each domain? Where are the gaps? CyberHeed provides structured compliance data that enables meaningful comparison across your portfolio.
Standardisation is what makes portfolio-level analysis possible. When every policyholder's assessment follows the same framework structure, uses the same assessment criteria, and produces the same structured output, you can aggregate, compare, and model at scale. Which domains have the highest failure rates across your portfolio? Which frameworks correlate with lower claim frequencies? These questions become answerable when the data is standardised.
See which frameworks each policyholder has been assessed against and their overall maturity in each. ISO 27001 at 82%. Essential Eight at Maturity Level 2. CPS 234 at 67%. Standardised metrics that mean the same thing across every policyholder.
Drill into any framework to see maturity by domain. Strong on access control, weak on incident response, moderate on asset management. The domains where policyholders are weakest are often the domains where incidents originate. Domain-level visibility gives you domain-level risk assessment.
See exactly which controls are unsatisfied, which have partial evidence, and which are fully covered. Not a percentage - a specific list of gaps with the severity and domain they belong to. When you need to understand what a policyholder hasn't addressed, the data is there.
The CyberHeed compliance process builds genuine security capability into the organisations that use it. Policyholders who go through SmartPrep don't just produce documents - they think through their security posture. They understand their gaps. They address them.
This is the long-term value proposition for insurers: policyholders on CyberHeed are better risks because the platform builds genuine capability, not just documentation. Over time, as more of your portfolio uses CyberHeed, you should see the effect in your claims data. Better-prepared organisations experience fewer incidents. Fewer incidents mean fewer claims. Fewer claims mean better portfolio performance.
CyberHeed is designed to build real security understanding, not just compliance documentation. When a policyholder's IT manager goes through SmartPrep conversations about incident response, they don't just produce a plan - they think through what would actually happen during an incident. That process builds the kind of organisational awareness that reduces risk.
Policyholders on CyberHeed maintain their compliance posture continuously. Evidence stays current. Gaps get flagged and addressed. Recurring tasks are tracked. They don't scramble before renewal to reconstruct twelve months of compliance work. They maintain it. An organisation that manages compliance continuously is a fundamentally lower risk than one that treats it as an annual exercise.
A policyholder assessed against multiple frameworks - ISO 27001 plus Essential Eight plus CPS 234 - has been through a more comprehensive assessment than one with a single certification. CyberHeed's cross-mapped controls make multi-framework compliance achievable. The breadth of coverage gives you confidence in the depth of posture.
All compliance data remains in Australia. Policyholder evidence, AI assessments, compliance posture data - all stored on Australian infrastructure. For Australian policyholders, this matters. For your risk models, it means the data governance is clean.
Similar aggregated oversight model for prudential regulators supervising multiple entities. [Links to: regulators.html]
The policyholders you underwrite: banks and financial institutions managing multi-framework compliance. [Links to: financial-services.html]
Multi-subsidiary compliance governance. The organisational complexity that drives cyber insurance requirements. [Links to: enterprise.html]
Book a demo. We'll walk you through the compliance data CyberHeed provides, how it compares to self-reported questionnaires, and what it means for risk-based underwriting.
Book a Demo