Optimize sovereign data placement portfolio

What it's for

Makes EU tier, BYOK and dedicated-VPC design an explicit risk/cost/value frontier instead of a one-size-fits-all deployment checkbox.

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.

{
  "data_workloads": [
    {
      "allowed_backup_region_ids": [
        "eu-central"
      ],
      "allowed_key_region_ids": [
        "eu-central"
      ],
      "allowed_processing_region_ids": [
        "eu-west"
      ],
      "allowed_storage_region_ids": [
        "eu-west",
        "eu-central"
      ],
      "business_value_scenarios": [
        120000,
        100000
      ],
      "direct_loss_scenarios": [
        100000,
        200000
      ],
      "evidence_verified": true,
      "id": "code",
      "maximum_p95_latency_ms": 200,
      "maximum_residual_unavailability_probability": 0.05,
      "minimum_provider_diversity": 1,
      "minimum_region_diversity": 2,
      "regional_risk_group_id": "eu",
      "required_control_ids": [
        "tenant-kms"
      ],
      "unavailability_prior_alpha": 1,
      "unavailability_prior_beta": 99
    }
  ],
  "placement_budget": 50000,
  "placement_options": [
    {
      "available_scenario_ids": [
        "base",
        "stress"

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.

{
  "baseline_current_state": {
    "conditional_value_at_risk": 202000,
    "expected_loss": 10100,
    "expected_operating_cost": 10447,
    "expected_value": 112215,
    "migration_cost": 0,
    "option_ids": [
      "current"
    ],
    "resource_use": {
      "engineering": 0
    },
    "risk_adjusted_score": 41168,
    "value_at_risk": 0
  },
  "constraints": {
    "placement_budget": 50000,
    "resource_capacities": {
      "engineering": 5
    },
    "risk_aversion": 0.25
  },
  "decision": "optimize",
  "failed_gates": [],
  "guardrails": [
    "Region allowlists and required controls are counsel- and security-governed constraints; the optimizer does not determine legal eligibility.",
    "Every workload receives exactly one executable option, with budget, resources, dependencies, exclusions, latency, diversity and residual-risk gates enforced before ranking.",
    "Shared regional loss is counted once per risk group; recommendations never migrate data or rotate keys automatically."
  ],
  "method": "monte_carlo_policy_constrained_sovereign_placement_pareto_v1",
  "option_policy_diagnostics": [
    {
      "failed_gates": [],
      "option_id": "current",
      "policy_feasible": true,
      "workload_id": "code"
    },
    {
      "failed_gates": [],
      "option_id": "resilient",
      "policy_feasible": true,
      "workload_id": "code"
    }

How it works

Sequential Bayesian & bandits — Learn while deciding — update beliefs as evidence arrives and choose where the next unit of effort is worth spending.

1. 1 Freeze counsel/security-owned storage, processing, backup and key-region allowlists, required controls and hard service limits for every data workload before evaluating options.
2. 2 Draw workload unavailability from Beta posteriors and coherent regional scenarios; count unique common regional loss once, and evaluate retained business value, operating/migration cost, expected loss and CVaR for feasible portfolios.
3. 3 Enumerate exactly when bounded or use deterministic beam search, reject hard-policy/resource/relation failures before scoring, compare the current-state baseline and return a risk/value Pareto frontier.

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.

Calibrating it to your org

Calibration workflow

1. 1 Define the management decision, target outcome, aggregate unit, privacy boundary, cadence, and prediction/intervention horizon for this organization.
2. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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": "choose one executable regional placement per" }
  → finds "optimize_sovereign_data_placement_portfolio"

gitrevio_capability_describe
  { "capability_id": "optimize_sovereign_data_placement_portfolio" }
  → returns the input schema and agent guidance shown on this page

gitrevio_capability_run
  { "capability_id": "optimize_sovereign_data_placement_portfolio", "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

See every tool in Security, access & compliance →