Two questions that need separate answers.
A facility can be well prepared and still be exposed to frequent fog, flooding or severe heat. Conversely, a site with infrequent hazardous events may have serious readiness gaps. Combining both into one unexplained number makes it difficult to decide what to improve.
Weatherhill’s design pairs a readiness assessment with a hazard-by-hazard exposure record. The supporting workflow connects site observations, operating requirements, evidence and action owners. Exposure Watch is the intended monitoring connection; live account synchronization requires its application integration and is not represented as complete here.
Begin with the operating requirement.
Define the facility and the function that must continue. “Has backup power” is vague. A useful requirement identifies the critical loads, the duration, the transfer behavior and the evidence of an appropriate test. The exact acceptance criteria belong to the facility’s responsible specialists and governing requirements.
The assessment then asks what has been demonstrated against those criteria. Policies, equipment records, inspection reports, exercises and performance tests provide different kinds of evidence. They should retain dates, scope and limitations rather than being reduced to a yes/no checkbox without context.
Five pillars organize the questions.
| Pillar | Proposed weight | Example question |
|---|---|---|
| Detection & decisions | 15% | Are relevant observations and escalation thresholds usable? |
| Physical protection | 25% | Are vulnerable assets protected to the defined requirement? |
| Continuity & dependencies | 25% | Can critical services continue through the specified interruption? |
| Response & people | 20% | Have people demonstrated the required response? |
| Recovery & improvement | 15% | Can restoration be executed and deficiencies corrected? |
The current method uses 30 assessment areas with levels from 0, known absent or failed, to 4, demonstrated against defined criteria. Pillar weights and rating rules are proposed pilot choices, requiring review and validation. The published methodology defines how the actual workbench handles evidence and applicability.
Unknown stays visible.
An unanswered item is not proof of failure and is not permission to assume success. Missing or expired evidence reduces what can be supported. When an assessment is incomplete, the workbench shows uncertainty and coverage rather than a confident, fully evidenced headline result.
Critical gaps remain prominent even when the weighted average is high. A readiness score is a summary of this rubric, not a waiver of a failed requirement. The appropriate action is tied to the specific capability, its owner and the evidence needed to close the finding.
Improvement changes the readiness record.
The site’s 71-to-84 example uses invented facility evidence to illustrate documented improvements. It is a synthetic demonstration, not a customer result. Improving protection, continuity or recovery can raise readiness while the hazard-exposure profile remains unchanged.
A 13-point score increase does not establish a 13% reduction in losses, an insurance discount or compliance. Those relationships would require their own validated evidence. Showing the assessment version, coverage and unresolved gaps makes the score more useful for an operating decision.
How a study uses the record.
- Identify the site, relevant hazards and the operating decision.
- Check whether available observations represent the assets and time period in question.
- Inspect evidence for the controls and requirements that matter.
- Produce prioritized findings, owners, proposed options and acceptance criteria.
- Update the record when new evidence demonstrates a change or expires.
This is the connection between Weatherhill’s physical research and infrastructure work: both need a defined question, a meaningful comparison and evidence that supports the decision being made.