3BrainAIWho CRI is for
Construction lenders and real-estate collateral reviewers who need a traceable basis for human review.
For construction finance & real-estate collateral
Monday morning.
A clear review position.
The manager arrives with the report, its supporting records and one clear answer: what has been resolved, what remains open and who owns the next step. Construction Risk Intelligence (CRI) is being built to make that review position traceable.
The Brief is a private walkthrough of ten prepared model situations. Access is free for invited visitors using a valid shared audience code or personal invitation. No email registration is needed for a shared code. New access requests are reviewed manually and do not grant access or create a pilot commitment.
From a real place to a clear review position
Historical aerial context and source
Smíchov City · aerial product reference 2025; exact acquisition day unverified. © ČÚZK / Zeměměřický úřad. Source and image limits.
Real historical context. Smíchov City, Prague · aerial product reference 2025; exact acquisition day unverified. © ČÚZK / Zeměměřický úřad. Source and image limits
Product context / Current stage: guided prototype. A separate controlled-case demonstrator is in the final stage of development, with a live demonstration in October 2026. Institution-specific configuration, calibration and evaluation require an agreed scope and responsible human review.
What the review gains
A project update gives the reviewer a starting point. CRI is being developed to organise the follow-up: connect the update to relevant evidence, identify the next useful question and keep the reasoning available for the next reviewer.
- A clearer question: the right asset, phase and date.
- A prepared follow-up: identify the needed record or expert response.
- A traceable account: connect source, finding and human review action.
What CRI produces
A short, versioned Evidence Pack that keeps the question, sources, uncertainty and next responsible step together.
Where CRI stands
Current stage: guided prototype. A separate controlled-case demonstrator is in the final stage of development, with a live demonstration in October 2026. Institution-specific configuration, calibration and evaluation require an agreed scope and responsible human review.
The continuation of the homepage story
The question is resolved.
The basis stays visible.
The useful outcome is a defensible review position: the resolved scope is clear, and anything outside it remains open.
A declaration is on the desk.
Drainage and paving are declared ready. The earlier accepted technical record covers earthworks only. The manager needs the adviser’s scoped response.
Pending · response requiredThe answer travels with its basis.
After the model adviser’s response is reviewed and accepted, the report records the resolved scope, its exclusions and the linked references. The manager can explain the position at the meeting.
Scoped acceptance · modelSee what supports this model outcome
Real source context: the historical aerial view identifies the setting. It does not confirm drainage or paving.
Fictional records: SMI-M01 defines the scope, SMI-M02 the earlier earthworks acceptance and SMI-M03 the new declaration. SMI-M04 is a scripted adviser reply, not a real inspection.
Analytical proposal: request the dated reply for the same phase and revision; withhold imagery-based completion.
Human acceptance: the model reviewer accepts only the defined external-works update. A bank’s own decision and issued record remain separate.
Illustrative Smíchov review scenario. No actual financing arrangement, site inspection or construction finding is assigned to the real project.
Satellite observations and project records
How satellite evidence supports a bank review
3BrainAI is developing Construction Risk Intelligence (CRI) to bring dated satellite observations together with authorised project records in a versioned Evidence Pack. For a construction lender or collateral reviewer, the useful question is what the available evidence supports, what remains uncertain and which document or expert response is needed next.
Satellite imagery can provide dated context about visible changes at a site. It cannot, by itself, establish engineering completion, contractual acceptance or eligibility for a loan drawdown. CRI has a guided prototype; a separate controlled-case demonstrator is in the final stage of development, with a live demonstration in October 2026. Institution-specific use requires an agreed scope and human review.
See how satellite measurements, specialist methods and validation contribute to bank review.
How satellite analysis supports bank review →A separate professional section
Go inside The Brief.
Inspect the records, the reasoning and the role of human review.
Free invitation access · Fixed invitation validity.
THE BRIEF / PRIVATE PROFESSIONAL SECTION
Explore the reasoning behind the report.
Ten prepared model situations across Austria, Czechia, the Netherlands and Germany let you inspect the records, examine the question, reveal a scoped reply and see what human acceptance changes. They are prepared cases, not customer deployments.
The Brief is a private walkthrough of ten prepared model situations. Access is free for invited visitors using a valid shared audience code or personal invitation. No email registration is needed for a shared code. New access requests are reviewed manually and do not grant access or create a pilot commitment.
Real locations and dated source context remain distinct from fictional documents and model review actions.
Request access to The Brief- Professional relevanceFor a new invitation, describe your role and evaluation purpose. A shared code identifies an audience, not a verified institution or individual.
- Confirm the evaluation scopeThe invitation defines permitted use and a fixed expiry. A shared audience code and a personal invitation are both supported.
- Invitation codeEnter with the code supplied in your invitation. Access also ends for an open session when the invitation expires. A request for a new code requires manual review.
No public sign-up or payment is taken on this page. The request is reviewed by a person.
Public Evidence Pack
Inspect the output format in an existing public record.
View the public exampleThe Brief
The Brief is a private walkthrough of ten prepared model situations. Access is free for invited visitors using a valid shared audience code or personal invitation. No email registration is needed for a shared code. New access requests are reviewed manually and do not grant access or create a pilot commitment.
Review the access processYour bank’s workflow
A separately scoped bank demonstrator and pilot explore your own question, roles, inputs and calibration.
Discuss an Evidence Readiness CheckThe bank demonstrator is intended for banking professionals; technical advisers participate through the bank’s process. Brief access does not purchase a bank pilot or imply acceptance of your institution’s case.
The four distinct meanings in a record
The review grammar
From context to a responsible review state.
The four meanings remain distinct throughout the record.
-
01 · Declared
Review context
What the hypothetical or institution-provided question says should be tested.
-
02 · Observed
Dated evidence
What the controlled source record supports within a stated observation boundary.
-
03 · Governed
Uncertainty and reasons
What remains partial, unverified or outside the permitted inference.
-
04 · Output
Human-review state
A reviewable record, not an autonomous credit or payment decision.
Two bank questions. One evidence discipline.
Use the record where the question arises.
Construction finance
Examine a milestone declaration against the relevant baseline and technical records. Keep the scope of a previous acceptance distinct from the work now presented for review.
Collateral & portfolio review
Focus follow-up between formal inspections. Ask whether a dated change is relevant to the monitored asset or one of its dependencies, and whether the next step needs documents, an explanation or a site visit.
Imagery supplies dated, surface-visible context. It does not establish property value, legal title, occupancy, hidden condition or protection against theft.
How CRI fits existing controls
Institutional fit
Keep existing controls.
Bring better prepared evidence.
The workflow is designed to add a versioned evidence state between formal control points.
Existing controls – unchanged
Site review
Drawdown review
Covenant check
CRI – designed to add between review points
Evidence Pack · review state
Evidence Pack · review state
Existing controls remain in place. CRI is designed to add a versioned evidence state between formal review points.
Source dates and reporting cadence depend on the agreed question; the Monday meeting is a narrative example.
The record you can inspect
A concise output with an explicit basis.
Read the logic of a record: how its question, evidence, limits and human review fit together.
Explore the six parts of the record
01 · Start with the question
What is being reviewed — and within which scope?
02 · Declared context
The question, baseline and document authority.
03 · Observed evidence
The dated source and what it actually supports.
04 · Bounded analytical conclusion
Connect the evidence to the question. State only what the available basis supports.
05 · Limits stay visible
Identify missing evidence, uncertainty and what cannot be inferred.
06 · Human review is a separate action
A named reviewer can challenge or accept a claim within an explicit scope. The analytical proposal does not grant acceptance.
A schematic guide to reading a record. No case result or bank decision is represented.
Record fields and status meanings
Evidence
Observation, bounded conclusion and uncertainty.
Context
Source, observation date and pack version.
Review
Reason codes, review state and next question.
Pending means the review is unfinished. Limited evidence means the basis is insufficient. Scoped acceptance records a human’s acceptance within a defined scope. Colour directs attention; it does not make a bank decision.
The target evidence chain
Target architecture
From controlled inputs to a versioned Evidence Pack.
The source, analytical candidate and responsible human review have different roles.
- Target workflow Project + observation inputs Controlled context, reports and observation media.
- Target workflow Candidate evidence state Bounded findings, reason codes and uncertainty.
- Target workflow Human review Confirm, refine or reject the candidate state.
- Prototype format Versioned Evidence Pack Controlled review record with visible provenance and review state.
Evidence suitability
Use the right evidence for the question.
Satellite observations, aerial context and project records each contribute a different part of the picture. The review question guides which sources belong together. CRI’s development focuses on keeping their dates, meaning and quality clear as the record moves towards human review.
Optical & aerial evidence
Useful surface context depends on resolution, coverage, season and the actual review question. An aerial image alone cannot confirm a milestone.
Radar & documents
Radar may add a different observation capability where it is suitable. Technical and project records remain necessary for questions an image cannot answer.
No data / no change
Insufficient observation cannot establish that nothing changed. The pack keeps the gap and the required follow-up visible.
Historical image: source, dates and limits
Source context
A real place. A model review.
The aerial view is a real historical source, used for orientation.
Smíchov City, Prague · aerial product reference 2025; exact acquisition day unverified. © ČÚZK / Zeměměřický úřad. Reprojected orthophoto prepared for this page. CC BY 4.0.
The real orthophoto was reprojected and resampled for display. It is used for orientation only: the fictional Phase A is not mapped, and the image cannot confirm its milestone.
Start with a useful question
Explore the review.
Then define the work.
Use the public record to understand the output, The Brief to inspect the prepared review experience, or an Evidence Readiness Check to discuss your own case.
Explore The Brief
The Brief is a private walkthrough of ten prepared model situations. Access is free for invited visitors using a valid shared audience code or personal invitation. No email registration is needed for a shared code. New access requests are reviewed manually and do not grant access or create a pilot commitment.
Request access to The BriefA specific bank question
Bring the asset context, available evidence and a responsible review role.
Discuss an Evidence Readiness CheckRemote verification in institutional practice
KfW Development Bank’s RMMV Guidebook explores remote management, monitoring and verification in international financial cooperation. It provides context on project reporting, data sources and institutional responsibilities. This reference does not indicate a partnership or endorsement of CRI.
Munich–Neufreimann: follow the evidence as a new district takes shape.
Retrospective district example · Hypothetical review scenario
In Munich’s Neufreimann district, a former barracks site is becoming a neighbourhood with around 5,500 homes planned. On 25 August 2026, Münchner Wohnen announced the completion of 190 homes in building area WA12.
NEUFREIMANN · SOURCE REFERENCE
Neufreimann · dated source context
↑ N≈ 200 m- 01Working area (AOI)
- The magenta frame marks the full retained district-and-surroundings crop. It is not a property or WA12 boundary.
- 02Dated reference
- DOP20 aerial image acquired on 24 Aug 2024. Acquisition date checked against source metadata at five points.
- 03Next review step
- Compare with dated Sentinel observations and project records. This aerial image does not establish completion of WA12.
View technical basis
Working area WGS84: 11.588–11.608° E / 48.194–48.203° N. DOP20 source resolution: 20 cm; the WMS crop was reprojected and resampled for display (approx. 62 cm per retained pixel). Source checks and spatial alignment support validation; this view does not present a validated analytical result.
Bayerische Vermessungsverwaltung · CC BY 4.0 · DOP20Open retained image without annotations ↗
Source-data previews
This prepared case demonstrates the review record and its reasoning boundaries. Dated imagery provides source context; no validated AI classification result is presented in this view.
Where CRI adds value
Specialist geospatial analysis and AI are central to the CRI technical approach, connecting satellite measurements with the requirements of bank review.
Our know-how lies in selecting and aligning sources, assessing their suitability, applying analytical methods and preparing traceable evidence for expert review.
Contains modified Copernicus Sentinel data (2020, 2024, 2026). Earth Search / AWS Sentinel COGs.
Neufreimann source route: the retained Sentinel previews were obtained through Earth Search / AWS Sentinel COGs. The aerial image is from the Bavarian surveying authority.
District transformation is visible; completion of WA12 is not established by these images.
The 2020, 2024 and 2026 observations describe the wider district. The latest image predates the announcement by 10 days. These selected dates are historical context, not a monitoring frequency.