Red Team & Adversarial Exercise
Adversarial pressure on your systems and decisions. CYBAIR posture supplies the attack surface; WINS plays the adversary.
Why this engagement exists
Red-team exercises usually test one layer — technical or strategic — and leave the other untouched. An adversary does not respect that boundary: technical exposure and decision fragility are exploited together, and defenses rehearsed on only one layer fail on the other.
What it looks like in your organization
- Red-team findings cover technical exposure but never test the decisions that follow.
- Strategic exercises assume the systems hold; technical tests assume the decisions are sound.
- Incident response is untested against an adversary that adapts.
- The organization has never seen its systems and decisions stressed together.
What we do and how it works
CYBAIR posture on the nominated workloads supplies the attack surface. WINS plays the adversary against your decisions and responses — facilitation is the engagement, compute is estimated then billed on actuals. The output is a combined technical and decision-layer exposure picture with a remediation and response plan.
The engagement includes
- Exercise scoping: systems, decisions, and adversary objectives
- CYBAIR posture profiling of the systems in scope
- WINS adversarial simulation on decisions and responses
- Combined technical and decision-layer exposure analysis
- Remediation and response plan with rehearsed paths
What you take away
Every deliverable is named, formatted, and tied to the outcome it enables. Nothing ships as a deck with no use.
Adversarial exposure report
Exposure reportTechnical and decision-layer exposure combined: where the adversary gets in, and what they can force you to decide.
You see the full attack path — systems and decisions — not just one layer.
Decision-layer stress results
Stress resultsHow your decisions and responses held under adversarial pressure, with break points named.
Leadership knows which decisions fail under pressure and why.
Remediation and response plan
PlanSequenced remediation for the exposure, plus rehearsed response paths for the scenarios that matter.
The next adversarial event meets a prepared response, not a crisis meeting.
After-action readout
ReadoutThe exercise story and findings delivered to leadership with prioritized next moves.
Leadership holds a defensible picture of adversarial resilience.
How this engagement runs
Scope the exercise
Week 1Systems, decisions, and adversary objectives are scoped. The CYBAIR workload count and WINS complexity are confirmed before play.
A locked exercise: what is attacked, by what adversary, to what end.
Map the attack surface
Weeks 1–2CYBAIR profiles the nominated workloads. Posture becomes the attack surface the adversary exploits.
The technical layer is measured, not assumed.
Play the adversary
Weeks 2–3WINS runs the adversarial simulation against decisions and responses. Compute is estimated at configuration, billed on actuals.
The decision layer is tested under adaptive pressure.
Close with the plan
Weeks 3–4Exposure becomes a remediation and response plan, closed with an after-action readout to leadership.
A combined-layer resilience picture with rehearsed responses.
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.
Each model, RAG pipeline, or agentic workflow you nominate for posture, compliance, evidence, and attestation.
The number of AI workloads you put in scope. Minimum one. You choose the estate to assess — the count is yours to set, and we do not flatten ten workloads and fifty into the same fee.
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. A pen test probes technical exploitability. This exercise stresses systems and decisions together under an adaptive adversary — the resilience picture, not just the exploit surface.
Ready to brief us on the Red Team & Adversarial Exercise?
We choose who we work with and confirm scope, capacity, and final pricing in the briefing.