Methodology & Trust
Surface Intelligence distinguishes recorded evidence from deterministic calculations and planning assumptions. Here is how, and what the results mean.
Four layers of information
Every piece of information in the platform falls into one of four layers. This separation is the core of the trust model: you always know whether a number is measured, calculated, assumed, or decided.
Recorded / Observed
Measurements, field observations, photos, documents, treatments, production records, warranty and service events. These are the evidence layer — things that happened and were captured.
- Roof measurement takeoff
- Field photos and notes
- Treatment records
- Production records
- Warranty / service events
Derived
Deterministic calculations from recorded data. These are reproducible from the evidence — same inputs, same outputs.
- Area and slope calculations
- Proposal totals
- Surface scores where applicable
- Historical climate metrics
- Data-quality findings
Planning
Planning-level scenarios and assumptions built on top of recorded and derived data. Useful for direction, not for engineering guarantees.
- Capital plan scenarios
- Preservation timing
- Budget ranges
- Planning-level risk
Human Decision
Judgment calls made by professionals. The platform records and preserves the context, but the decision belongs to people.
- Final scope decisions
- Professional inspection judgment
- Warranty decisions
- Work approval
- Capital approval
Surface Health Scoring
Surface health scores use a deterministic penalty-based model. Each surface type (roof, concrete, foundation) starts at a maximum score and receives deductions based on:
- Visible issues - Granule loss, curling, cracking, spalling, scaling, efflorescence, and other observable conditions. Each issue carries a weight proportional to its typical severity impact.
- Climate exposure - Freeze-thaw cycles, salt exposure, coastal environment, snow load, and UV exposure. Atlantic Canada climate factors are drawn from regional climate data and adjusted by property location.
- Property age and construction - Older properties and properties built before modern building code improvements receive higher baseline risk.
- Surface area - Larger surface areas increase potential replacement exposure and therefore priority.
Scores are calculated independently for roof, concrete, and foundation systems, then combined into an overall surface health score. The methodology is documented and versioned; scores produced by different methodology versions are not directly comparable.
Risk Levels
| Level | Score Range | Interpretation |
|---|---|---|
| Critical | 0–29 | Immediate professional review recommended. Significant deterioration or deferred maintenance risk. |
| High | 30–49 | Notable deterioration. Schedule professional review within current planning cycle. |
| Moderate | 50–69 | Some deterioration detected. Include in annual monitoring program. |
| Low | 70–100 | Surface condition within expected range. Routine maintenance advised. |
Capital Planning
Capital Planner uses a budget-constrained ranking model. Assets are ranked by priority score (combining risk level, preservation potential, replacement exposure, and climate exposure), then selected within the available budget from highest priority down. Assets that cannot be accommodated are deferred to the next planning cycle. Multiple strategy modes are available to reflect different portfolio management approaches.
Climate methodology
Climate exposure indicators are Historical Climate Snapshot data — planning-level estimates derived from property location, surface type, and reported concerns. Freeze-thaw, salt exposure, coastal exposure, snow load, and wind-driven rain indicators are determined using deterministic rules based on Atlantic Canada climate patterns, enhanced with historical climate archive data where available.
Important distinction: climate exposure indicators are a separate system from the surface scoring engine. The scoring engine itself uses deterministic rules and does not call external data services; the climate layer may draw on historical climate archive data to produce its planning-level indicators. Neither is continuous environmental monitoring, predictive failure analysis, or engineering-grade climate analysis.
These indicators must not be used for insurance, compliance, or structural design purposes.
Data Sources
Scores and risk estimates are calculated using:
- Property information provided by the user through the platform.
- Surface condition details recorded during measurement and assessment workflows.
- Climate indicators derived from city-level Atlantic Canada climate data and historical climate archive data.
- Estimated replacement costs based on surface type, age, and regional construction cost indices.
Calculations are performed server-side using deterministic rules. The scoring engine does not use machine learning, artificial intelligence, or external data services.
Import and Export
Portfolio data can be imported via CSV file. The system normalizes imported records by inferring missing values where possible and flagging validation issues for review. Exported data is available in CSV and JSON formats. All imported and exported data belongs to the customer and can be extracted at any time.
Limitations
Surface scores and risk levels are not engineering assessments, professional inspections, insurance evaluations, or capital reserve studies.
The accuracy of results depends on the accuracy of information entered. The platform cannot verify property conditions remotely without a site inspection.
Surface conditions change over time. Records reflect conditions at the time of data entry and should be updated periodically.
Climate risk estimates are planning-level indicators based on location and reported concerns. They do not replace site-specific engineering analysis or climate resilience assessments.
Data Ownership and Portability
Customers retain ownership of their uploaded property data. The platform provides data export at any time via CSV or JSON format. The platform, scoring methodology, taxonomy, and calculation rules are owned by the platform operator (AVENIQ). De-identified and aggregated data may be used for benchmarking and product improvement where permitted by contract and applicable law. No customer's identifiable asset data is exposed to another customer.
Product Recommendations
Product and treatment recommendations follow a controlled four-stage process: system candidate identification, evidence verification, technical review, and customer presentation. Recommendations include the rationale, supporting evidence, applicable documentation, and disclosure of commercial interest where applicable. Recommendations remain within approved technical documentation and verified site conditions.