The system
Sentinelle will read what the contract promises, on a legal engine that runs today. Vigil9 will read what happens on the ground. The join will put both on one asset, on one timeline, with the evidence. Agents will watch the gap; a person decides.
Floor by floor · fictional building
Choose a floor to see what it does and where it stands today.
Official texts from Légifrance, Judilibre and EUR-Lex, kept current as new versions are published. Next: the insurance terms towns publish in their tenders, and the policies pilot partners will share.
Built on our legal engine, which is constrained to its corpus and required to cite the article behind each answer (98.4% of answers attached to an openable source on our CITC test set). What is in build: turning policy wordings into structured covers, exclusions, limits and deadlines, each tied to its clause.
The join will give each asset one identity: address, parcel, building ID, contract and parties. Every fact will carry two dates: when it was true, and when we knew it. The same peril on both sides. Rules will test the clause against the event, and weak matches will go to a person.
Will map each building and the hazards it faces, from public sources, and what satellites observe, such as the extent of a flood seen by radar through cloud. Floods first, then wildfire.
Copernicus Sentinel-1 radar and Sentinel-2 imagery, French risk maps, the land registry and building outlines. In Canada: the Open Database of Buildings and provincial cadastres.
At each satellite pass, each new version of a text and each deadline, agents will compare the two sides and raise any gap with its clause and its image. They will draft; a person decides.
Every asset, all layers, and their state
French and EU law, insurance policies, public tenders; later leases and loans
Agents · designed
A person decides
Copernicus radar and optical imagery, risk maps, land registry, building outlines
Key:Runs todayIn buildDesigned
Why it is hard to copy
Once running, each policy read and each event observed adds one pair: this clause, against this ground. With each client's written consent, it would build a record across insurers that no single insurer can build from its own book.
Fine-tuned with our research partner CITC on training triplets built from French legal vocabulary.
Official sources: Légifrance and DILA, Judilibre case law, EUR-Lex. Kept current automatically from the official feeds.
Retrieval limited to our corpus, re-ranking, an instruction not to answer beyond the retrieved texts, and sources returned with a confidence score.
The legal engine is the way in. The join is what compounds.
The operating model · designed
Vigil9 will observe the ground at each satellite pass and through public data.
Sentinelle will state what each contract requires, on top of the law our engine already reads.
Agents will compare the two and raise each gap with its evidence. Then a person decides.
In mission control, rules are written before launch, every out-of-limit value raises an alarm, and an operator decides. Contracts on buildings are still checked after the loss.
The name Vigil9 nods to the constant watch of mission control.
Questions we are asked
Through the address, the land registry and the identifiers in the contract: address, then parcel, then the national building ID in France. Each match will carry a score, and weak matches will go to a person. The match rate will be measured on the pilot, and it will be the first figure we publish.
Clients own their documents and the results on their buildings. Copernicus data is free and the French land registry is open; policies come from the client, or from the tenders towns publish. We will keep clause–event pairs across clients only with written consent, stripped of anything that identifies the client.
A person always decides. Each alert will carry its clause and its observation, so a person can check it against the source.
Not on its own. The flood extent will be read against the parcel: it says the water overlaps the parcel, not that it entered the building. Each conclusion will cite the scene and the processing version. Radar shows water, not depth or damage.
Never at the satellite pass. Outside the natural-disaster scheme, the contract sets the time limit, at least five working days from the knowledge of the loss (French Insurance Code, art. L113-2). Under the natural-disaster scheme, it runs 30 days from the publication of the natural-disaster order (arrêté). The system is designed to show the time left; it triggers nothing.
It is the third link of the join, after the building and the date. Policies and orders distinguish river overflow, run-off and rising groundwater; radar does not. The peril will come from the natural-disaster order, which names it, and from flood-hazard maps; radar only shows the water. Where they disagree, a person decides. The Pas-de-Calais replay will be checked against the published orders.
We plan to use Statistics Canada's Open Database of Buildings, crossed with provincial cadastres such as ParcelMap BC. Canadian law is not in our corpus: we will extract the clauses, and counsel will interpret them.
No. The insurer decides on cover, and a court if it is disputed. Our rules will test the clause against the event to prepare the insured's file; a person on the insured's side decides what to send.
Next
A 30-minute live demo, in English: the legal engine on questions you choose from French or EU law (it answers in French), then the architecture of Sentinelle and Vigil9.
Mehdi Kheredine · Founder and CEO
mehdi.kheredine@legibus.ai