Assessment intake

Request a reliability assessment.

A scoped, written evaluation of one mission-critical system: where it can fail, what is measurable today, and what evidence would make its behaviour defensible to engineering, risk, and audit reviewers.

What you receive

A scoping conversation focused on one system, not a sales call.
A written findings memo: failure surfaces, what is measurable now, and evidence gaps.
A recommended validation path — replay, gates, or governance controls.
A clear statement of what we would not take on, and why.

Prefer a direct route? Email jeanblanc@blancquantsystems.com or reach the founder on LinkedIn.

findings-memo.md — excerptIllustrative sample

F-01Severity · High

Evaluation not reproducible

Unpinned dependencies and an unseeded sampler make two runs of the same commit disagree.

Validation path · Deterministic validation harness with pinned inputs, then re-baseline before agreeing gates.

F-02Severity · Medium

No tail budget at merge

Aggregate metrics are gated; latency tails and drift are unmonitored where incidents originate.

Validation path · p99 and drift thresholds enforced in CI against a recorded baseline.

F-03Severity · Low

Controls documented, not checkable

Policy exists in prose with no artifact tying a release to the controls it satisfied.

Validation path · Per-release evidence bundle whose gate results map onto the documented controls.

Illustrative sample · not a client artifact

Implementation work

Assessments and platform engagements run through Blanc Quant Systems. Broader consulting, integration, and staffed delivery run through our advisory arm, Blanc Quant Services.