Stop compliance theatre. Start proving resilience.
Trusted by leading teams in all geographies
Problems we help solve
1. Decision rationale is reconstructed after incidents.
In many organizations, the reasoning behind critical cyber decisions is only reconstructed after an incident occurs. When something goes wrong, teams try to explain why certain decisions were made, who authorized them and what information was available at the time.
2. Compliance activity does not test decision reasoning.
Frameworks such as TLPT and formal cyber audits create valuable structure and regulatory alignment. They typically focus on technical controls and procedural readiness, not on whether leadership judgement and escalation logic would hold up during a real crisis.
3. Evidence is expected, context is questioned
Regulators and boards increasingly expect more than proof that controls exist. They want to understand why certain decisions on risk were made. When this context is not clear in advance, organizations may have evidence of activity but limited clarity around the decision rationale behind it.
Outcomes that strengthen your cyber resilience
Clear escalation ownership
Leadership can demonstrate who holds decision authority during a cyber incident, how escalation occurs, and how responsibility transfers as situations evolve. Authority lines and decision pathways are clearly defined and understood across the organisation.
Validated executive decision logic
Executive judgement has been tested against realistic attack scenarios before formal regulatory testing cycles. Leadership decisions, assumptions, and escalation choices have been examined under pressure rather than reconstructed after incidents.
Defensible documentation
Leadership can clearly explain why specific cybersecurity decisions were made, supported by structured documentation and aligned with supervisory expectations. This provides credible evidence of governance, maturity, and cyber resilience.
How it is delivered
A structured methodology supporting TLPT cyber scenario planning, managed scenario cycles and advanced threat modelling engagements. Designed to test not only controls, but leadership decisions under pressure.
1. Discovery
We identify where decision clarity, escalation ownership, or governance structures may fail during a cyber incident. From this, we design realistic cyber scenarios aligned with regulatory expectations, threat activity, and business impact.
2. Scenario Design
Build regulator-aligned scenarios reflecting realistic attack paths. Leadership and operational teams work through the scenario. Focus is on decision points, escalation logic, and executive judgement.
3. Exercise Delivery
Run structured, expert-led scenario engagements focused on decision points, escalation clarity, and evidence capture. The engagement produces documented cyber scenarios, decision rationale, improvement actions, and regulator ready evidence. This turns your next scenario planning exercises into defensible proof of resilience.
We’ve led regulatory testing and high-stakes engagements worldwide. From highly regulated enterprises, insurers to cloud providers, teams already use Venation to stress-test what matters most.
European Financial Institution
Head of Cyber Resilience
Sophie Preisendoerfer
Head of CTI, SWIFT
Peyman Faratin
CEO