Complex data verification & solutions
Trust is not a vibe.
It's a number.
We turn “trusted” into a verification deficit, a gate, and a certified reference — for any complex system, from physics to climate to AI.
We turn “trusted” into a verification deficit, a gate, and a certified reference — for any complex system, from physics to climate to AI.
Valiant Verification Systems is a verification company. We apply one discipline — analyse the constraints, verify against known failure modes, repair the claim — to the models that shape policies, prices and lives.
Our founding principle: don't ask a complex system for its values — ask for its constraints, its count, and its deficit. Everything else is covariance, not knowledge.
Generation is solved. Verification is not. We make verification a product: a number with a denominator, a gate that can fail, and a reference you can defend.
Every complex model that shapes a policy, a price or a life should carry a verification deficit — not a confident press release. We want a world where “how verified is this?” is a question every institution has to answer with a number.
The same verification spine applied to the hardest case (theoretical physics) and the most consequential one (climate). Both are in the open pacland project.
Five kernel-checked theorems (Lean, no sorry) prove the flux sector's exact content is a single constraint — the tadpole — plus labels. No exact, polynomial, duality-invariant formula can derive the Standard Model's 19 parameters.
Twelve of 19 CMIP6 models fail conservation — the worst leaks at about 2× the Earth's energy imbalance. The defect sits in the atmosphere–ocean coupling, so the field's own drift-correction removes it: 19 of 19 conserve after the fix. Naive says 3.78 K (hot-biased); the strict gate collapses to 2.71 K; the repaired answer is 3.08 K — inside the observed 2.6–3.9 K.
Climate deficit → · deficit report · trust board · reference model · drift guard · ACE report
The flux sector's only exact structure is the constraint (the D3 tadpole) and the topology. We proved it symbolically and machine-checked it in Lean. The consequence is a no-go: the fifty-year search for an exact-formula unification is mathematically empty.
This is the whole method in one case: analyse the constraint, verify it, repair the defect. Fixing the leak doesn't change the physics — it removes a numerical error, and the answer lands inside the observed range instead of over-collapsing or hiding the leak.
Verification doesn't just make a claim honest — it changes a budget. The difference between a naive ensemble and a verified reference is a number a board can defend. The question is not whether the analytical work costs something; it's what the unverified number costs.
| Decision | Naive basis | Verified basis | The difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Climate adaptation provisioning | 3.78 K ensemble mean | 3.08 K gated / 2.71 K reference | ≈ 0.7–1.1 K of hot-model bias removed from the central estimate |
| Model selection | average all 53 CMIP6 models | 14 trusted, each exclusion named | 39 untrustworthy models excluded — and *why* |
| Physics research direction | continue the exact-formula search | provably empty — stop | years of misdirected theory avoided |
| AI / software claims | “it builds and runs” | 130 guards, 503 mutation tests, 26 hazards | breakage caught before it ships |
Illustrative framing based on the measured findings in the pacland work. The point is the direction and the mechanism: a verified number removes bias and exposure from the decision. Exact figures are set per engagement, not invented here.
The standard is open. Certification is the audited product: a signed conformance report, a public registry entry, and a mark that carries its own scope — so anyone can check it rather than trust it.
A candidate manifest, the evidence bundle, and read access to the model + data.
Six checks against the public spec — a hash-stamped report is the result.
Version, level, deficit, guards proven and the report hash, in public.
| Product | Version | Level | Deficit | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| pacland | 0.9 | L3 | m = 4 | self-certified reference |
The first independent certification is the design-partner run. The reference entry is self-run and labelled as such.
Priced against what teams already pay for developer tooling (Copilot $19–39/seat, Snyk ~$25/seat), not against a hoped-for enterprise budget. All prices in USD.
The enforcement engine. $49 for enterprise (SSO, SLA).
The living guard + hazard feed. $1,500 enterprise adds the badge audit.
First 10: 12 months free, for a real integration and a named reference.
Assessing a complex model — climate, physics, drugs, finance — is a separate engagement: a diagnostic from $15k, a full assessment $45k–$75k with the repair and a signed report, then $20k–$40k/yr to keep the trust board current. Talk to us →
We compute the deficit for your model, run the gate suite, and give you a defensible reference — with the exact exclusions named.
Bring a model and its data; get the deficit, the certificate radius and the trusted subset back as a reproducible result.
The specification is open; the certification is audited. The goal is a standard, not a vendor lock-in.
We'll tell you its verification deficit, which of its claims are extrapolation, and what the verified reference is. Then you decide what it's worth to act on it.