Security / Trust model
Security review should explain system consequence.
Veriom combines deterministic security evidence with architectural context so teams can see not only what is weak, but what it can reach, why it matters, and how confidently the system knows.
A finding is useful when a team can verify it.
Every review preserves coverage gaps, original scanner severity, the global score breakdown, masked evidence, lifecycle, owner, and the architectural paths that make the weakness consequential.
Evidence over assertion
Material claims cite stable evidence IDs; unsupported observations remain hypotheses.
Bounded execution
Untrusted content is inspected in constrained workflows and never becomes an unrestricted agent tool.
Human authority
Report approval and remediation actions remain explicit, role-bound team decisions.
Inspectable output
Structured artifacts expose model, confidence, coverage, cache, and measured cost without exposing hidden chain-of-thought.
Evidence before confidence
The visual language follows the trust model.
Layers represent independent sources. Grain keeps uncertainty visible. High-contrast decision surfaces appear only after evidence has been reconciled. The interface never uses a polished diagram as proof by itself.
Inspect current controlsReview path
Collect
Deterministic evidence
Reconcile
Identity and confidence
Reason
Architectural consequence
Approve
Human-controlled action