From raw evidence to defensible answers.
SURAGX is designed to help investigators reconstruct what happened, connect evidence into an attack story, test investigative questions, inspect supporting proof and produce reviewable findings—while keeping AI subordinate to evidence.
“How did the attacker enter, and which records support the conclusion?”
EVIDENCE REQUIREDDetection is not the same as explanation.
Security teams may have alerts, logs and forensic outputs across different tools. The investigation problem is turning that fragmented material into a coherent, reviewable account of what happened—without losing provenance or confusing AI interpretation with fact.
Evidence is fragmented
Events and forensic outputs arrive in different formats. Investigation needs normalization without losing the original source record.
Sequence matters
Investigators need a timeline and attack story across initial access, execution, persistence, lateral movement and impact.
Proof matters
A persuasive paragraph is not enough. Findings need supporting records, contradictions, gaps and reproducible provenance.
Human judgment remains central
AI can assist analysis, but authoritative conclusions are designed to require investigator review and confirmation.
One path from evidence to a reviewable conclusion.
The approved architecture baseline defines a deliberately simple investigator journey. Open-source forensic engines stay behind adapters; the customer experience remains case-centric.
Evidence is authoritative. AI is assistive. Security is enforced by design.
SURAGX’s architecture baseline treats evidence, parser output and model input as untrusted. Security boundaries exist around identity, tenant access, evidence storage, forensic processing, AI tools, proof and operational telemetry.
Six security pillars
Customer-facing security language is intentionally conservative until each control is verified against a release.
One evidence discipline. Different investigation contexts.
The core workflow can support enterprise incident response, managed DFIR, cybercrime investigation and privacy/breach assessment while keeping jurisdiction-specific legal conclusions outside the product.
DPDP breach investigation
Reconstruct incident facts, affected scope, evidence and remediation context for time-sensitive breach assessment and reporting preparation.
Architecture baselineLaw-enforcement workflows
Evidence intake, provenance, timeline reconstruction, investigative questions, proof-linked findings and reviewable reporting.
Architecture baselineEnterprise & MSSP investigations
Tenant/customer/case hierarchy, private deployment architecture and a consistent evidence-to-proof workflow.
Scope disciplineCurrent scope & future evolution
See what V1 includes, what is explicitly excluded and how future evidence sources are governed.
“Every answer should lead back to evidence.”
Product principle for SURAGX investigation intelligence