CFO

Cyber risk in financial language, with method, confidence, and assumptions visible before the ask.

Valty gives CFOs inspectable financial exposure estimates with FAIR-style assumptions, scenario drivers, and the evidence chain needed for insurance renewal, board reporting, and IC decision support.

Review the financial-risk model

AssumeInspect

Method and confidence adjacent to every estimate, never a naked number.

ModelChallenge

Scenario drivers and sensitivity view so assumptions can be questioned.

RenewPackage

Evidence summary for insurance renewal, board review, or IC meeting.

Operating questions

The three questions this page has to answer.

Board, operating, and proof questions arrive from different seats. The same evidence model has to answer all three without contradicting itself.

Board question

What is the financial materiality of the cyber risk we are accepting this quarter?

A board-level cyber risk number needs its metric, time horizon, method, and key assumptions alongside the estimate. A loss percentile does not establish confidence in those assumptions.

Operating question

Are the security investments we are making actually reducing EBITDA exposure?

CFOs need to see the delta: which remediation actions changed the exposure estimate, by how much, and what evidence supports the movement.

Proof needed

What can we give the insurer or auditor that will hold up to scrutiny?

Insurance renewal and audit defense require evidence packages with source, confidence, and freshness, not a deck assembled the week before the review.

Primary surface

Inspect the annual-loss estimate and the evidence supporting it.

The actual EBITDA bridge screen below shows a company annual-loss estimate, source coverage, an evidence-quality state, and pending model validation. It distinguishes contingent loss from maintainable EBITDA. This capture does not display a P10–P90 range.

Company annual-loss estimate kept separate from the fund P95
Evidence quality shown separately from modeled loss percentiles
Source coverage and pending model validation visible
Contingent loss is not capitalized as an exit-multiple adjustment

Real Valty application capture from August 31, 2026, with illustrative data. This is a different scenario from the fictional sample decision memo; neither is a customer outcome.

Quantify product surface — **Quantify**Actual Valty annual-loss interface with illustrative data, source coverage, and pending model validation. Evidence quality is not a statistical confidence interval.Open full-size product view ↗

Proof matrix

Claims a CFO can make safely with Valty

Financial claims require method, confidence, and source coverage visible before export. Estimates are decision-support, not warranties.

Modeled company annual loss

Source: Stated frequency and severity assumptions with source coverage
Confidence: Decision-support only, labeled
Freshness: Tied to source coverage date and model version

Modeled loss percentiles, when available

Source: A loss distribution generated from stated assumptions
Confidence: Outcome variability, not confidence in the assumptions or an audit opinion
Freshness: Bound to the distribution's model version and input date

Modeled reduction-per-dollar estimate

Source: Exposure delta per funded action
Confidence: Model-based, requires assumption review
Freshness: Updated when action queue changes

Insurance renewal evidence package

Source: Policy terms + control catalog + exposure summary
Confidence: Underwriter-reviewable; no carrier acceptance or premium outcome claimed
Freshness: Freshness visible before submission

Blocked financial claim

Source: Stale or missing source evidence
Confidence: Not publishable without refresh
Freshness: Requires source owner action

Inspect the model before you take the number to the board.

Review the metric, assumptions, source coverage, and limitations behind the estimate. The fictional sample decision memo makes the distinction between mean loss, loss percentiles, and input uncertainty explicit.