The expensive finding is never the missing control — it's the one that's documented as present and doesn't actually hold. Faultline reads your source and configuration and proves which is which, control by control, before an auditor, a regulator, or an incident does.
Written report · one system · fixed price. No calls. No live system access. NDA-first.
Illustrative excerpt — structure and verdict discipline are exactly what the real report delivers, on your system, against your framework. Three verdicts exist: holds, does not hold, and not verifiable. The third one is the honesty you're buying.
Fast-moving regulated teams don't lack controls on paper. What drifts — quietly, release by release — is the gap between the documented control and the effective one: what your evidence claims the system does vs. what the source and configuration actually do. AI-assisted development widens that gap faster than any audit cycle closes it.
Verifies the documentation set is complete and consistent. Takes system behavior largely on attestation.
Watches checklist items and integration signals. A green dashboard is not an effective control.
Emit hundreds of flags with no verdict, no ranking, no framework mapping. Noise isn't assurance.
Tests whether the perimeter survives an attack — not whether your evidence matches your frameworks.
The square left empty: a written verdict on documented vs. effective, cited to the exact line of evidence. That square is what Faultline does. Only that.
A repo, an export, or the config set you choose — under NDA, through your channel of choice. No live access, no agents installed, no credentials exchanged.
Control by control, we rebuild what the system actually does from source and configuration — and set it against what your compliance documentation says it does, mapped to the framework you answer to.
One written document per system: every claim cited to its evidence line, every gap named, every reviewed-vs-not-reviewed boundary stated explicitly. Yours to hand to your team, your auditor, or your board.
Turnaround is fixed per scope sheet, agreed before we start. You always know what's in scope, what isn't, and what it costs — in writing, up front.
The fastest way to judge a written deliverable is to read one. Our anonymized sample report shows the exact shape of what you'd receive: findings cited to file and line, an effective-vs-documented comparison table, and an explicit list of what was not reviewed.
Nothing is asserted that isn't shown; anything unverified is named as unverified. The report contains no silent gaps — by construction.
Each report states plainly what was out of scope. You'll never wonder what we didn't look at.
One system, fixed scope, fixed price. The report either proves the value or it doesn't — no retainer, no land-and-expand.
A written review of one system's source and configuration against the framework you name: which documented controls hold at the effective boundary, which don't, and where the evidence for each claim lives. Delivered async as a single report.
Send us the framework you answer to and one system you'd want read. You'll get a scope sheet and a fixed price in writing — and you can read the sample report first.