Forecast cross border data restriction loss
Forecast migration, operating, contract and common jurisdiction loss from counsel-defined cross-border data restrictions with a Gamma-Poisson event model, pooled log-normal duration/cost and coherent tail scenarios.
What it's for
Prices the cash and customer downside behind residency promises so executives and investors can reserve migration capacity before a regional restriction becomes a crisis.
What you give it
Inputs split into evidence read from your connected systems, calibration your team owns, and numerical controls that affect precision but never the result's meaning.
| Field | Type | Role | Required |
|---|---|---|---|
| current_sovereignty_exposures | array of objects (16 fields) | Evidence | Yes |
| historical_sovereignty_classes | array of objects (12 fields) | Evidence | Yes |
| jurisdiction_groups | array of objects (4 fields) | Evidence | Yes |
| max_detail_rows | integer ≥ 1, ≤ 500 | Numerical control | Optional |
| minimum_cost_observations | integer ≥ 1, ≤ 100000 | Your calibration | Optional |
| minimum_history_periods | integer ≥ 1, ≤ 10000 | Your calibration | Optional |
| minimum_migration_observations | integer ≥ 1, ≤ 100000 | Your calibration | Optional |
| random_seed | integer ≥ 0, ≤ 4294967295 | Your calibration | Optional |
| scenarios | array of objects (9 fields) | Evidence | Yes |
| simulation_count | integer ≥ 1000, ≤ 200000 | Your calibration | Optional |
| tail_probability | number > 0, < 1 | Your calibration | Optional |
Each current_sovereignty_exposures
record
| Field | Type | Required |
|---|---|---|
| contract_loss_per_restriction | number (≥ 0) | Yes |
| cost_prior_log_mean | number | Yes |
| cost_prior_log_sd | number (> 0, ≤ 5) | Yes |
| cost_prior_strength | number (> 0) | Yes |
| evidence_verified | boolean | Yes |
| forecast_data_tb_days | number (≥ 0) | Yes |
| id | string (non-empty) | Yes |
| jurisdiction_group_id | string (non-empty) | Yes |
| migration_prior_log_mean_days | number | Yes |
| migration_prior_log_sd | number (> 0, ≤ 5) | Yes |
| migration_prior_strength | number (> 0) | Yes |
| operating_loss_per_migration_day | number (≥ 0) | Yes |
| preventive_control_effectiveness | number (≥ 0, ≤ 1) | Yes |
| restriction_rate_prior_rate | number (> 0) | Yes |
| restriction_rate_prior_shape | number (> 0) | Yes |
| sovereignty_class | string (non-empty) | Yes |
{
"current_sovereignty_exposures": [
{
"contract_loss_per_restriction": 5000,
"cost_prior_log_mean": 9.210340371976184,
"cost_prior_log_sd": 0.4,
"cost_prior_strength": 3,
"evidence_verified": true,
"forecast_data_tb_days": 500,
"id": "exposure-1",
"jurisdiction_group_id": "eu",
"migration_prior_log_mean_days": 2.302585092994046,
"migration_prior_log_sd": 0.3,
"migration_prior_strength": 3,
"operating_loss_per_migration_day": 2000,
"preventive_control_effectiveness": 0.2,
"restriction_rate_prior_rate": 1000,
"restriction_rate_prior_shape": 1,
"sovereignty_class": "eu-transfer"
}
],
"historical_sovereignty_classes": [
{
"cost_log_squared_sum": 84.83036976765439,
"cost_log_sum": 9.210340371976184,
"cost_observation_count": 1,
"evidence_verified": true,
"exposure_data_tb_days": 100,
"id": "history-0",
"migration_log_days_squared_sum": 5.301898110478399,
"migration_log_days_sum": 2.302585092994046,
"migration_observation_count": 1,
"period": 0,
"sovereignty_class": "eu-transfer",
"verified_restriction_event_count": 0
},
{
"cost_log_squared_sum": 84.83036976765439,
"cost_log_sum": 9.210340371976184,
"cost_observation_count": 1,
"evidence_verified": true,
"exposure_data_tb_days": 100,
"id": "history-1",
"migration_log_days_squared_sum": 5.301898110478399, Truncated for display — the full payload is 232 lines.
What you get back
This is the actual output of running the example above — computed by the same function the platform calls, not an illustration.
{
"configuration": {
"minimum_cost_observations": 5,
"minimum_history_periods": 12,
"minimum_migration_observations": 5,
"random_seed": 43,
"simulation_count": 2000,
"tail_probability": 0.05
},
"decision": "forecast_supported",
"exposure_forecasts": [
{
"conditional_value_at_risk": 309651.8261,
"expected_loss": 41452.9611,
"exposure_id": "exposure-1",
"failed_gates": [],
"posterior_mean_events": 0.7575,
"probability_any_restriction": 0.4645,
"supported": true,
"value_at_risk": 188342.4336
}
],
"failed_gates": {
"scenario_evidence_verified": true,
"unsupported_exposure_or_group_ids": []
},
"guardrails": [
"Restriction classes, scenario probabilities and applicability are supplied by counsel and accountable risk owners; this is not a legal prediction or legal advice.",
"Zero-event periods and data-volume exposure must be retained; selective incident histories inflate rates and invalidate the forecast.",
"Common jurisdiction loss is counted once per group to avoid multiplying shared revenue exposure across assets."
],
"method": "gamma_poisson_compound_lognormal_sovereignty_loss_v1",
"summary": {
"conditional_value_at_risk": 330394.9465,
"expected_total_loss": 45895.4611,
"expected_unique_common_loss": 4442.5,
"median_total_loss": 0,
"probability_any_loss": 0.482,
"value_at_risk": 231669.224
}
} How it works
Forecasting & survival — Estimate when something completes or fails, with censoring and unresolved work handled honestly rather than dropped.
- 1 Build consecutive zero-inclusive sovereignty-class periods with data-TB-day exposure, verified restriction events and positive migration duration/cost log moments.
- 2 Update tenant priors with a Gamma-Poisson frequency model and partial-pooled log-normal severity models, then simulate governed rate, duration, cost, operating and common-jurisdiction scenarios.
- 3 Count shared jurisdiction revenue/fixed loss once, report exposure-level posterior risk plus portfolio VaR/CVaR, and abstain below history, severity or provenance thresholds.
Before you trust it
Every tool in the catalog ships with the conditions under which its answer is meaningful — and the conditions under which it should abstain instead of guessing.
Assumptions & guardrails
- Training examples precede their outcomes, censoring and unresolved work are represented, and deployment populations remain comparable to validation cohorts.
- Restriction events have stable class definitions, zero periods are retained, exposure precedes outcomes, positive severities share a defensible log-normal approximation, and scenarios are coherent.
- A predictive interval or risk estimate is not a deadline promise, causal explanation, or individual-performance judgment.
- This is a conditional planning distribution from governed assumptions, not a prediction of legislation, regulator conduct or legal advice.
Minimum evidence
- historical_sovereignty_classes: required and organization-defined
- current_sovereignty_exposures: required and organization-defined
- jurisdiction_groups: required and organization-defined
- scenarios: required and organization-defined
How to validate it
Use chronological train/calibration/test windows, compare proper scores and decision value with a simple baseline, and recalibrate only from outcomes resolved after prediction time.
Calibrating it to your org
Same for everyone
The mathematical kernel, validation rules, method version, and JSON output semantics are organization-independent; no tenant-trained coefficients or company benchmark is embedded in the function.
Specific to you
- stable class-period spine joined to complete governed restriction-event, data-volume, migration-project and finance histories without dropping zero periods, failed migrations, unresolved outcomes or shared jurisdiction incidents
- counsel-defined restriction class/applicability, event/exposure/migration/loss perimeter, tenant priors, horizon, preventive effectiveness, coherent scenario law, common-loss uniqueness, evidence/support thresholds and tail appetite
Calibration workflow
- 1 Define the management decision, target outcome, aggregate unit, privacy boundary, cadence, and prediction/intervention horizon for this organization.
- 2 Build a tenant-scoped historical cohort using only information available before each prediction or decision; preserve zero periods, censoring, assignment probabilities, and unresolved outcomes when the method requires them.
- 3 Estimate statistical parameters on training history, but obtain costs, utilities, risk tolerance, practical-effect thresholds, capacity, and policy constraints from accountable decision owners.
- 4 Validate on later time windows or held-out aggregate units at the deployment grain, against a simple baseline and the function-specific validation strategy.
- 5 Deploy only if the returned decision clears evidence, overlap, calibration, robustness, and guardrail checks; warning, unsupported, schema-gap, and fallback decisions are abstentions.
- 6 Monitor realized outcomes, data drift, coverage, and decision regret; recalibrate at a governed cadence or after a detected regime/definition change, never merely because a stakeholder dislikes the result.
Call it from your AI
You don't wire up 388 tools in your MCP client. The GitRevio MCP server exposes 18 tools, three of which let an agent search the catalog, read a tool's schema, and run it — so the assistant finds this one on its own.
gitrevio_capabilities_search
{ "q": "forecast migration operating contract and common" }
→ finds "forecast_cross_border_data_restriction_loss"
gitrevio_capability_describe
{ "capability_id": "forecast_cross_border_data_restriction_loss" }
→ returns the input schema and agent guidance shown on this page
gitrevio_capability_run
{ "capability_id": "forecast_cross_border_data_restriction_loss", "arguments": { ... } }
→ returns the result shown above Works in Claude Desktop, Claude Code, Cursor, Cline, Continue.dev, Goose and Aider. See the MCP server.
Related tools
Audit data sovereignty residency evidence integrity
Audit every governed data asset's point-in-time storage, processing, replica, backup, log/cache and key locations plus cross-region transfers against an effective counsel-supplied residency policy, independent evidence, encryption controls and retention limits.
Optimize sovereign data placement portfolio
Choose one executable regional placement per governed data workload by Monte Carlo posterior risk and exact/beam Pareto search under hard residency, KMS, encryption, diversity, latency, availability, relation, budget and capacity constraints.
Audit cyber control evidence integrity
Audit whether claimed defense in depth is supported by current independent control tests mapped to declared attack-path steps, while preserving duplicate mappings and counting each exposed business asset only once.
Audit software supply chain integrity
Audit the deployed runtime software supply chain from application roots through resolved dependency edges: reconcile SBOM freshness, version resolution, source pinning, artifact attestation, support horizon, license policy, vulnerability disposition, evidence coverage and unique application value without treating repository text as provenance or exploitability evidence.
Audit workforce identity access evidence integrity
Audit the point-in-time chain from an opaque workforce subject through authorized accounts, independent identity evidence, approved least-privilege grants and MFA/device-backed access events.
Bayesian account risk triage
Prioritize human review of auditable account-security and policy-conflict evidence using Bayes factors and decision costs.