# Cybersecurity board report — annotated fictional example

Illustrative worked example. Company, decision, and all input assumptions are fictional. Not a customer outcome.
Fixture: example-manufacturing-co-cyber-decision-v1. Model fixture date: 2026-09-05. This is not a claim of a fresh customer review.

## Decision required

Propose $90,000 within a $100,000 first-year cap for Example Manufacturing Co.: the required $15,000 recovery tabletop plus $75,000 recovery capability investment. The fictional decision is due on day 45. Approver: [name the company budget approver].

Annotation: name the cost horizon and objective before comparing outcomes. The tabletop is required by a fictional sponsor policy, not law or an insurer. It receives no modeled loss-reduction credit.

## Exposure and alternatives

All loss metrics are modeled annual gross loss, before insurance. The objective is the lowest modeled P95 among priced options within budget.

| Option | First-year spend | Modeled mean | Modeled P95 |
| --- | ---: | ---: | ---: |
| No optional action (mandatory tabletop only) | $15,000 | $791,066 | $3,512,449 |
| Mandatory tabletop + access hardening | $70,000 | $402,566 | $2,092,283 |
| Mandatory tabletop + recovery capability | $90,000 | $513,439 | $1,908,058 |
| Mandatory tabletop + both optional actions — over budget | $145,000 | $257,921 | $1,285,222 |

Annotation: recovery moves P95 from $3,512,449 to $1,908,058. Access hardening has lower modeled mean loss at $402,566, so changing the objective changes the recommendation. P95 is exceeded in about 5% of simulated years; it is not expected loss or a worst-case ceiling. Figures are rounded.

## What could change the recommendation

If recovery only reduces mean per-event severity to $800,000 rather than $650,000, its modeled P95 becomes $2,348,379. Access then has the lower P95. Obtain evidence for the recovery assumption or record a conditional decision.

Segmentation is held until a scoped cost quote, tested coverage, and a supported link to the annual loss scenario are available. Missing cost is not zero.

## Approval and follow-through

Approver / decision / conditions / date: [complete]
Execution owner / due date: [complete]
Verification test and evidence link: [complete]
Next review: [calendar date]
Observed control change: not yet verified in this fictional example.
Modeled financial change: synthetic comparison only, not observed savings.
Actual spend: not a customer outcome.

This example is not an EBITDA adjustment, valuation opinion, insurance estimate, or guarantee. The 50,000-trial model is reproducible but is not independently calibrated customer evidence.

Full sample and provenance: https://valty.ai/proof/sample
Input requirements and methodology: https://valty.ai/methodology

Source: https://valty.ai
Free to adapt for your organization. Replace placeholders with reviewed, scoped evidence.