Detection is a solved problem. Half a dozen platforms can tell you, within 48 hours, that 12 hectares of canopy disappeared inside a polygon you care about. Some can do it in near real time. None of them can tell you what to do about it — and that's the part the buyer actually pays for.
The interpretation gap
Between a verified loss event and a defensible buyer decision sit at least seven analytical steps: cause attribution (clearing vs. fire vs. natural blowdown), boundary check, ownership attribution, legality check, NDPE-policy mapping, grievance correlation, and recommended action. Detection platforms typically handle two. We see buyers stitching the rest together in spreadsheets and slack threads — which works until it lands in front of a regulator.
7
Analytical steps between alert and decision
2
Steps typical detection platforms cover
11 days
Median time to defensible decision without interpretation layer
<48 hrs
Same decision with interpretation layer in place
Why this gap exists
Detection is a satellite problem. Interpretation is a records problem. The two require entirely different teams, and most platforms only staff for one. We built Geometrack around interpretation precisely because the satellite layer was already commoditised — and nobody else was doing the boring archival work that turns a pixel change into a sourcing decision.
"If your alert system can't answer 'who, why, and what now?', it's a notification, not intelligence."
- Cause attribution requires fire data, weather, and prior-year canopy history.
- Ownership attribution requires registries, gazettes, and litigation records.
- NDPE mapping requires the supplier's own policy text and the buyer's policy text, side by side.
The center of gravity has moved. Detection is table stakes. Interpretation is the work.