Geopolitical.
Sanctions, conflict, and export controls — fragility under regime change.
Geopolitical risk is usually narrative, rarely structural. A single export-control update, a single sanctions designation, a single tariff schedule can re-price an entire supply chain overnight — but the structural setup that made the chain that exposed wasn't visible in any standard risk view.
Defensive analysis catches up. Adversary planning runs ahead. Lists of strategic dependencies aren't ranked by leverage; coercion plans are built around named bottlenecks. The asymmetry shows up at exactly the moments where the named bottleneck gets named.
The relevant graph is messy on purpose: legal entities, beneficial ownership, jurisdictional registration, end-use control, dual-use designation. The graph's edges are written by regulators and regimes, not by procurement. Most risk tooling treats the graph as a list.
Manifold ingests the corporate, legal, and trade graphs and joins them to jurisdictional layers (sanctions regimes, export-control schedules, tariff bands, licensing requirements). Edges encode ownership, contractual, and licensing dependency.
PEARL runs counterfactuals on named regime changes (this export-control list expands; this entity is designated; this jurisdiction enters secondary-sanctions scope). PARETO simulates the resulting cascade. TARSKI verifies which paths through the graph remain compliant under the new regime. SPIRTES discovers ownership and licensing structure the data implies but public filings obscure.
Every export-control update means a manual scramble across the operating footprint. The structural exposure — which products, which sites, which counterparties are decisive — isn't pre-computed anywhere.
Pre-computed jurisdictional hazard across the operating graph. Counterfactual on the actual graph for any new control regime.
Lists of strategic dependencies aren't ranked by leverage. Adversary coercion plans are built around named bottlenecks; defensive analysis often isn't.
J + C ranking on the relevant subgraph. Quantified leverage by node, by adversary, by named scenario.
Country narrative ≠ exposure. The political-risk premium is set off vibes; structural exposure to specific regime-change scenarios isn't priced separately.
Structural fragility under named scenarios. Tail-depth on jurisdictional-hazard concentration in the holdings graph.
Run Manifold on a geopolitical graph.
Trial accounts come pre-loaded with a curated dataset. Or request an invite to bring your own graph.
