Historical example · Austria
Fischamend
A dated comparison of large roofed footprints. The Evidence Pack keeps observations, the review question and limits together.
Open Evidence Pack v0.5 →For banks, funds and owners.
One property · One earlier assessment One next decision
The physical world does not wait for your next review.
Our aim: less manual work gathering and comparing evidence, so your team can better prepare the next property review.
Discuss one propertyExplore Alram14Watch the 28-second overview
Alram14, Munich · Public sources · Prepared review example.
Your existing report can be the starting point. The output is an Evidence Pack with sources, limits and a clear next review step.
Alram14 · Residential projectMunich–Sendling, Germany186 rental apartments · Retail · Childcare
AOI · ALRAM14
PREPARED EXAMPLEREVIEW CONTEXT01
SOURCE DATE2024-08-24
REVIEW QUESTIONWhich milestone
applies?
applies?
NEXT RECORDAgreed schedule ↗
The output · Evidence Pack
A clear record of the review.
Sources, findings, limits and the next review step · connected in one versioned document.
Inspect a public Evidence PackFischamend · Historical example of the format, separate from Alram14.
Construction Risk Intelligence (CRI) in 28 seconds
See what needs checking next.
A dated source raises a specific review question. See how the next step and its context can stay together in one record.
Source / Question / Next step
Alram14 · Public-source example · Illustrative workflow. No completed customer review is shown.
Watch without sound · 28 seconds · Sources and limits
Read the video transcript and image credit
- Dated source: Alram14, Munich. Historical orthophoto acquired 24 August 2024; not the current site condition.
- Review question: Pembroke’s announcement of 28 April 2026 says mid-2028. Implenia’s page, checked 22 October 2026, says October 2028. Which milestone applies? Different dates do not prove delay.
- Illustrative next step: Request the current agreed schedule, its version and the milestone definition. These records are not supplied in this public example.
- Illustrative record: Keep the original question and sources. Link a response, when received, to a new version. No response or completed assessment is claimed here.
- Next step: Discuss one property with our team.
Bayerische Vermessungsverwaltung – www.geodaten.bayern.de · CC BY 4.0. Existing geographic crop, resized; image content unchanged.
Illustrative ROI scenario
Less effort per review.
Assumed outcome, not measured savings or a price quote.
40%less total work per review75 to 45 minutes across all participants.
20%modelled ROI over 12 monthsValue of usable time after model costs.
Based on usable work time, not cash savings.
Scenario assumptions and calculation
Assumptions for comparable work
Assumptions dated October 2026. A pilot would measure actual effort, output quality and costs for the agreed scope.
- Comparable reviews
- 50 per month; same scope and quality
- Total work per review
- 75 → 45 minutes across all participants, including preparation, professional review, corrections, queries and false alerts
- Hourly cost and usable capacity
- €60/hour; 80% of released time can be used: 20 of the 25 team hours per month
- Model recurring costs
- €900/month for service, data and operation combined
- Model one-off setup cost
- €1,200
- Planning horizon
- 12 months; six-month comparison below
20% modelled capacity ROI over 12 months
Total work reduction: (75 − 45) / 75 = 40%. Released time: 50 × (75 − 45) / 60 = 25 h/month. Usable capacity: 25 h × 80% = 20 h/month.
Capacity value: 20 h × €60 × 12 = €14,400. Model costs: (€900 × 12) + €1,200 = €12,000. Net capacity benefit: €14,400 − €12,000 = €2,400. ROI: (€14,400 − €12,000) / €12,000 × 100 = 20%.
Capacity value is not a cash saving. These are model costs, not a price quote. No avoided loss is included.
Six-month comparison
With the same monthly assumptions: €7,200 capacity value − €6,600 model costs = €600 net capacity benefit. ROI: (€7,200 − €6,600) / €6,600 × 100 ≈ 9.09%. The one-off setup cost is spread over a shorter period.
How the assumptions change the result
- At 50% usable capacity, the 12-month scenario gives −25% ROI; the six-month comparison gives −31.8%.
- Six-month break-even requires 73.3% usable capacity at 50 reviews per month. Alternatively, it requires about 46 reviews per month at 80% usable capacity, with unchanged costs, work per review and quality.
- The 12-month projection assumes unchanged monthly costs, work per review, quality and usable capacity. It is a model, not measured customer savings or demonstrated performance at scale.
First paid engagement
One property. One review question.
You bring the context
An earlier report, the property and the question your team needs to answer. A general description is enough for first contact.
We agree the work
Suitable dated sources, the review scope and the specialist involvement needed for your question.
You receive a record
An Evidence Pack with sources, observations, limits and a documented next step. If the question cannot be answered, it records the missing evidence or inspection needed.
Your team provides the context and a responsible reviewer; any data access or IT involvement is agreed for the engagement. Scope, required sources, specialist involvement, price and delivery date are agreed before work begins.
The public Evidence Pack and The Brief present prepared examples. The CRI demonstrator is in development. The functions available in a demonstration and the scope of any paid engagement are agreed separately. Specialist review remains part of the process.
The Brief
Go deeper in The Brief
Seven model situations from property finance.
See what to check before the next decision.
From a loan extension to the next drawdown
Explore the review question, the evidence to examine and the next step for the bank.
Illustrative scenarios, not customer results.
CRI was selected for ESA BIC Czech Republic in 2026.
Company history: 3BrainAI Solutions completed EY Startup Academy Frankfurt 2025.
Programme and ecosystem details in About →Further perspectives
Historical examples. Real sources.
Munich–Neufreimann
What do the sources show about the new district?
Bayerische Vermessungsverwaltung · Geodaten Bayern · CC BY 4.0
Lausitz
Land & water · Sentinel-2
From open-pit mine to lake: what visibly changed?
Explore the comparisonGerman North Sea
Offshore wind area · Sentinel-1 radar
Two radar observations: what is visible at the sea surface?
Explore the comparisonHistorical observation pairs · Contains modified Copernicus Sentinel data (2019, 2026).
Case StudiesReal places.
Explore case studies
Village im DrittenViennaSmíchov CityPragueCTP AmsterdamAmsterdam
Real places.
Clearer questions.
Explore case studies Image sources
Village im Dritten: Datenquelle: basemap.at; © OpenStreetMap contributors · ODbL 1.0. Smíchov City: © ČÚZK / Zeměměřický úřad, Praha 7-2, 2025. CTP Amsterdam: Beeldmateriaal Nederland / PDOK, 2025. CC BY 4.0. Montage of three locations; crops, fades and display colour adjustment. Vienna: acquisition date unverified. Prague and Amsterdam: 2025 product references; exact acquisition days unverified.
Explore the analytical method.
Satellite analysis
From observations to evidence
See how source selection, analysis and validation support a scoped human review.
Explore the analytical principleSchematic illustration · not measured CRI results.
Elmar WEB · Prepared guide
Questions about the example?
Prepared answers with sources. No live analysis or document upload.
What does Alram14 show?
The dated images provide historical context. Public project announcements describe the restart. The review question is which schedule and milestone apply; the image alone cannot answer it.
Do the two dates prove a delay?
No. Their scope, milestone definition and current validity need checking. The agreed project schedule is not available in this public example, so no delay or completion percentage can be established.
Can Elmar approve a drawdown?
No. This prepared guide explains public material. It does not inspect private project records, issue an assessment or make a lending decision. A responsible specialist must review the case.
How do I apply this to my property?
Start with one property and one review question. Our team will discuss the relevant records, scope, price and delivery date. A general description is enough for the first contact.
Elmar does not infer missing project facts. Ask our team if the sources do not answer your question.
Discuss one property →