Geopolitical Risk & Competitiveness Assessment
Simulation-backed assessment of geopolitical and competitive exposure. AIR sizes the readiness picture; WINS tests the futures. Compute is estimated until the game is configured.
Why this engagement exists
Geopolitics and industrial policy now move faster than annual strategy. Leaders need consequence analysis before capital, market entry, or alliance choices lock in — but most organizations have no way to test a strategic decision against plausible futures before committing to it.
What it looks like in your organization
- Strategy assumes a stable geopolitical and regulatory environment that no longer exists.
- Market entry, alliance, and capital decisions are made without consequence analysis.
- Scenario planning is a static workshop, not a simulation with real branching.
- Competitive and geopolitical shocks are reacted to, never rehearsed.
What we do and how it works
AIR frames the readiness picture so the scenarios are about your organization, not an archetype. WINS stress-tests the futures on your actual decision nodes: market, alliance, capital, industrial policy. Facilitation is in the package; WINS compute is estimated until the scenario is configured, then billed on actuals. You leave with playbooks, not a threat brief.
The engagement includes
- Decision framing: the actual choice under analysis
- AIR calibration of the readiness picture
- WINS scenario configuration and facilitation
- Proactive and reactive playbooks per tested future
- Shared operating picture and guidance for continued WINS use
What you take away
Every deliverable is named, formatted, and tied to the outcome it enables. Nothing ships as a deck with no use.
Geopolitical and competitive consequence map
Consequence analysisSecond- and third-order consequences of the decision under analysis, mapped across the scenario families that matter.
Leadership sees what actually happens downstream of each option — before committing.
Stress-tested strategic options
Options analysisEach strategic option tested under adverse scenarios, with failure modes identified.
The choice is made against tested futures, not best-case assumptions.
Proactive and reactive playbooks
PlaybooksFor each tested future: what to do early (proactive) and what to do when the trigger hits (reactive).
Speed when the environment moves — responses are pre-written, not improvised.
Shared operating picture
Operating pictureA common frame across strategy, risk, and leadership: the decision, the futures, and the agreed responses.
The organization argues from the same map instead of from departmental intuitions.
How this engagement runs
Frame the decision
Week 1The actual choice — market, alliance, capital, industrial policy — is framed precisely. Not a generic threat brief; a decision with consequences.
Everyone agrees on what decision is being tested and what counts as an answer.
Calibrate with AIR
Weeks 1–2AIR supplies the readiness inputs so the scenarios reflect your organization’s actual capacity and constraints, not an archetype.
Scenarios are grounded in what your organization can actually do.
Run the futures
Weeks 2–4WINS branches the decision across scenario families. We facilitate; compute is estimated at configuration and billed on actuals.
Tested consequences for each option — the substance of the decision.
Leave with playbooks
Weeks 4–5Proactive and reactive paths become playbooks leadership can run, plus guidance on how to keep using WINS as the environment moves.
A rehearsed response set and the ability to run future games without starting over.
How the fee is built
The engagement fee moves on three multipliers — sensitivity, involvement, and organization type — and the platform units the work consumes are their own lines. Nothing is hidden inside a flat number.
Sensitivity
×0.90 – ×1.30 on the engagement feeSensitivity sets the handling envelope around the whole engagement: how data moves, where evidence lives, who can touch it, and what containment we must maintain. Higher sensitivity means cleared handling, segregated evidence, and slower, more deliberate operations — real cost that a flat fee would hide.
Open information. Standard handling, no containment overhead.
Proprietary business information. NDA-grade handling and controlled evidence storage.
Compliance-bound data. Framework controls and audit-ready evidence handling shape the work.
Defense-grade pathways. Cleared handling, boundary containment, and evidence segregation inside your perimeter.
Involvement
×0.85 – ×1.35 on the engagement feeInvolvement is how much Multipolar operator time is on the hook. Counsel at checkpoints is a different commitment than embedded delivery inside your team, your systems, and your cadence. The multiplier tracks senior hours actually committed — not a markup.
We advise and interpret; your team executes. Senior counsel at defined checkpoints.
We run the engagement end to end, with your stakeholders at the decision points.
Embedded delivery. Our operators work inside your team until the outcome is actually in place.
Organization type
×0.85 – ×1.25 on the engagement feeThe same technical work lands differently depending on who is buying it. Federal and defense engagements carry procurement, compliance, security review, and stakeholder alignment that a mid-market engagement does not. The multiplier prices the coordination and accountability surface, not the analysis.
Fewer stakeholders, faster decisions, lighter coordination overhead.
The baseline: standard commercial engagement surface.
Public-sector procurement and multi-agency stakeholder surface.
Investment-platform cadence: deal-driven timelines and IC audiences.
Joint-delivery and enablement motions with partner delivery teams.
Assurance functions: evidence standards and underwriting audiences.
Federal procurement, compliance crosswalks, and multi-office alignment.
Mission-critical review, security handling, and acquisition-process alignment.
Scope & scale of platform units
The largest component of most totalsEvery engagement consumes platform units — CYBAIR workloads, AIR organization bands, GENOMIA twins, WINS scenarios, SiliconAIR systems. Units track your estate, not our appetite for flat pricing: an 8-workload assessment and a 50-workload assessment are different engagements and are priced as such. You set the scope in the configurator; the total moves with it, and nothing is quietly under-scoped to fit a number.
Simulation compute
Estimated until configured · billed on actualsWINS simulations carry real compute costs that scale with scenario count, branching depth, and campaign length. A focused single-scenario game and a sustained multi-agent campaign are orders of magnitude apart. Facilitation and after-action are in the fee; compute is estimated once the game is configured, then billed on actuals — you pay for what actually runs, never a padded average.
Platform units in this engagement
Units track your estate, not our appetite for flat pricing. You set the scope; the total moves with it. Each unit below is consumed by this engagement and billed as its own line.
The organization or portfolio profiled against the AIR readiness ontology, sized by headcount and portfolio breadth.
The size of the organization being assessed: people, portfolios, and the systems that matter. A 200-person shop profiles at the Small band; a 10,000-person multi-portfolio enterprise profiles at Large or Extra-large.
The simulation campaign: scenario families, adjudication, facilitation, and after-action.
How many scenario families the decision needs and whether the game is a focused exercise or a sustained campaign. Compute is estimated after configuration and billed on actuals.
What the engagement fee covers
- Scoping, workshops, and interpretation
- Every deliverable listed on this page
- Cross-framework mapping where the package includes compliance
- Executive translation — board, program-office, or IC language
- Handoff and a defensible next-step recommendation
What it does not cover
- Platform units consumed by the work (shown as their own lines)
- WINS simulation compute (estimated, then billed on actuals)
Frequently asked questions
No. It is a set of decision paths with playbooks, grounded in simulation. Threat briefs describe the world; this tests your decision against it.
Ready to brief us on the Geopolitical Risk & Competitiveness Assessment?
We choose who we work with and confirm scope, capacity, and final pricing in the briefing.