Community-Risk Intelligence
Know the local issue that could threaten your next data center milestone before it does.
CRI is an early warning and response readiness platform for data center community, public affairs, and infrastructure teams. It watches local sources, ties what it finds to your sites and upcoming approvals, and tells you each morning what changed and what to prepare.
01 · The problem
Surprises don't come from nowhere. They come from sources nobody had time to read.
Zoning votes, permit hearings, tax incentive decisions, utility filings: the risks to a data center project build up in council agendas, local news, and community meetings long before they reach a vote.
Most teams cover this with a patchwork of tools that were never built for the job:
News alerts Agenda skimming Stakeholder spreadsheets Agency clippings
These treat every mention as equally important, miss public process events entirely, and say nothing about whether you are ready to respond. So the risk shows up for the first time in the meeting itself.
02 · How it works
From local noise to a defensible morning brief.
-
Watch the sources that matter
Official records Local news Public meetings Community discussion
Tracked per site, source by source. Nothing is scraped from the open social web.
-
Anchor everything to sites and milestones
Every issue, claim, and stakeholder position is tied to a specific site and its next public decision point, so urgency is always visible.
-
Pair risk with readiness
For each rising issue, CRI shows whether you hold approved local evidence and proof points to respond credibly, or a gap that needs work before the next hearing.
-
Keep every claim traceable
Official News Operator Community
Evidence stays tiered by source type, cited, and marked with confidence. Every summary expands into the quote, the source, and the date behind it.
-
Deliver it as a briefing, not a dashboard
A written daily brief: what changed, what's emerging, and what to prepare before the next milestone. Proof is always two clicks away.
03 · Inside the product
What it looks like when it lands on your desk.
The examples below use fictional sites and dates, but this is the shape of the product: written, specific, and always one click from the underlying source.
The daily brief
Every morning: what changed, where, and why it matters. Each entry is tied to a site and a date instead of a wall of mentions.
Water use concern gaining ground at Cedar Bluffs
Two new public statements ahead of the May 14 county water board review. The "aquifer drawdown" claim appears in official comments for the first time. Until now it circulated only in community discussion.
Issue: water use Confidence: medium Sources: 3 →
Grid connection milestone confirmed at Rockdale East
Utility commission agenda posted: interconnection decision moved to June 2. No new opposition on record.
Issue: grid capacity Confidence: high Sources: 1 →
Risk, paired with readiness
Risk never shows up alone. For each issue you see how exposed you are, and whether you could respond credibly today.
Stakeholder positions
Who has said what, in public. Positions track stated stances by public role and institution, with the statement and date behind each one. Private individuals are never profiled.
County Board Chair
Public authority
Water use Opposed · hardening ▲
"Until the aquifer numbers are independently verified, I can't support the permit."
Board meeting minutes · Feb 24
Riverkeepers Alliance
Community group
Water use Opposed · stable ●
"We want the drawdown study made public before any vote."
Public meeting remarks · Feb 27
Cedar Bluffs Chamber of Commerce
Business group
Tax incentives Supportive · stable ●
"The project remains the county's largest investment in a decade."
Open letter · Feb 20
Summary leads to proof
Every material claim expands into the quote, the source, its evidence tier, and the date. Nothing is asserted without a trail.
"The campus will draw two million gallons a day from the aquifer."
"…our estimate, based on the operator's own filing, is a peak draw near 2M gal/day…"
County water board, public comment record · Mar 1
"Residents questioned the water figures at Thursday's open house…"
Cedar Bluffs Gazette · Feb 27
The process behind it
AI proposes; people approve. Routine extractions from official records can be approved automatically, visibly labeled, and stay one click from human review.
New claim proposed from official record
AI proposed awaiting human review
Milestone date updated from posted agenda
Auto approved · routine extraction
04 · What you get
Built around the work your team already does.
Daily brief
What changed across your portfolio every morning, written like an analyst wrote it.
Milestone preparation
Likely concerns, stakeholder positions, and the best available evidence before each hearing or vote.
Site risk review
Issues, claims, and readiness for one site, on one page.
Stakeholder positions
Public roles and stated positions over time, never private profiling.
Ask with citations
Questions answered only from stored evidence, with citations you can check.
Executive briefings
Weekly summaries that are short, defensible, and honest about confidence.
05 · Who it's for
One picture of local risk, four ways to use it.
Community & public affairs leads
Own the daily picture: what changed, what's emerging, and what may matter before the next meeting.
Permitting & infrastructure leads
See which upcoming approvals are exposed and what could delay them.
Regional portfolio leads
Compare sites on the same terms and put limited time where it matters most.
Executives
Get concise, defensible summaries with confidence levels, uncertainty included rather than hidden.
06 · A complete example
The site brief, end to end.
Before a milestone, everything above comes together in one written brief for one site. This is a condensed example with fictional data.
Summary
Opposition around water use is organizing ahead of the May 14 county water board review. The aquifer drawdown claim moved from community discussion into the official record this week, and the board chair has hardened her position. Grid and tax issues remain quiet. The main readiness gap is the absence of a local hydrology proof point; without it, any response leans on corporate material that has not persuaded this audience before.
Confidence: medium Based on 7 sources
Current exposure
Key claim in play
"The campus will draw two million gallons a day from the aquifer." Disputed · needs response
First raised in community discussion in January; entered the official record via a water board public comment on March 1. The figure traces to a peak scenario in the operator's own filing and is being read as a daily average.
Who to expect at the hearing
County Board Chair
Public authority
Water use Opposed · hardening ▲
Board meeting minutes · Feb 24
Riverkeepers Alliance
Community group
Water use Opposed · stable ●
Public meeting remarks · Feb 27
What to prepare
- Commission or surface a local hydrology proof point; the readiness gap on water use is the single biggest exposure at the hearing.
- Prepare a plain language explanation of peak versus average draw, anchored to the operator filing the claim actually cites.
- Confirm the utility statement on grid capacity is current in case the interconnection timeline comes up.
07 · Built for trust
Intelligence you can defend in front of a council, or a board.
- Every material claim traceable to a cited source
- No black box risk score; you see the ingredients
- Confidence and uncertainty visible everywhere
- Human review gates the trusted record
- Evidence tiers never flattened: official records and forum posts are not equals
- No profiling of private individuals
Show up to the next public meeting already prepared.
See the daily brief on your own sites.
Request a demo