COMPARISON
VeriOps vs Traditional Approaches
Different tools solve different problems. Here's where VeriOps fits.
| Approach | What It Does Well | Where It Breaks |
|---|---|---|
| Condition Monitoring | Detects anomalies | No action guidance |
| Predictive Maintenance | Estimates RUL | Low defensibility |
| Dashboards | Show trends | Burden on humans |
| Consulting | Expert judgment | Not scalable |
| Alert Systems | Immediate notice | No context or confidence |
| VeriOps | Issues decisions | Refuses when uncertain |
The VeriOps Difference
Traditional Tools
- Dashboards and monitoring
- Probabilities and alerts
- Analysis paralysis
VeriOps Decisioning
- Decision issuance platform
- Governed confidence ratings
- Closed decision states
Side by Side
Traditional Output
⚠ ALERT: Anomaly detected
Severity: High
Prediction: ~30 days to failure
No additional context
What do you do with this?
VeriOps Output
State: S1 — Degrading (Reversible)
Confidence: MED
Rationale: 2 operators agree
Scope: Bearing 4, last 7 days
Action: Monitor, plan maintenance
Defensible. Actionable. Scoped.