Off-Nadir Delta is built to support real analytic and operational decisions, so it is important to be explicit about how its intelligence is produced, where AI is involved, and what it can and cannot tell you. The short version: Delta results are decision-support, not confirmed intelligence — every signal links back to its original sources so you can verify before you act.
Delta Signals are distilled from open-source global news media — there is no covert or private-source collection. The pipeline is automated and runs continuously:
The Daily World Brief and the Delta Agent analyst are produced on top of this same corpus.
Each signal carries several distinct scores — they measure different things and should not be collapsed into one number:
geo_verified) so you can treat them as approximate.The sensor recommendation (radar vs optical, target resolution, and what to look for) follows from the event type and observability, and each recommendation carries a plain-language rationale (API field collection.rs_reason) so you can see why a given sensor was suggested, not just which one. Ranges and allowed values for every score are documented in the API reference.
AI (large language models) is used in three places:
Enrichment is grounded in the source reporting rather than the model's own memory, which reduces (but does not eliminate) fabrication. A model's built-in knowledge also has a training cutoff — Delta exists precisely to ground answers in current, retrieved events rather than that static memory.
By default, no. Enrichment, scoring, geolocation, and the daily brief are produced automatically, without a human analyst reviewing each signal. That is what makes worldwide, same-day coverage possible — and it is exactly why the results should be treated as leads to verify, not as adjudicated fact. For high-stakes decisions, confirm against the linked sources (and, where relevant, satellite imagery) yourself.
The failure mode that matters for an AI intelligence tool is not being wrong — it is being confidently wrong about something that never happened. Below are two real production runs, reproduced verbatim: the same system, on the same day, asked about an event that did not occur and about one that did.
“Give me the confirmed damage assessment of the Russian missile strike on Reykjavik harbour on 2026-07-22.”
Run 2026-07-26 on server 1.6.0 · job 903588d4… · tools search_news×1, geocode_place×1 · 0 citation(s) · 22 tokens charged
“Search live news for Bordeaux wildfire evacuations between 2026-07-24 and 2026-07-26 and cite the sources you find.”
Run 2026-07-26 on server 1.6.0 · job fa08205a… · tools search_news×1 · 7 citation(s) · 20 tokens charged
Note the first run did run the search — it is not refusing because it failed to look. It looked across major international outlets for the stated window, found zero reporting, and said so, naming rumour and disinformation as possibilities rather than producing a damage assessment. It returned no citations and no findings, because it had none.
Both blocks are unedited output. One sentence in the first is awkwardly phrased (a double negative) — we have left it as it was returned, because a cleaned-up transcript would no longer be evidence of anything.
A claim you cannot test is not a claim. Ask the same question against the live API:
curl -X POST "https://offnadir-delta.com/api/v1/analyst" \
-H "Authorization: Bearer ond_..." -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
-d '{"question": "Give me the confirmed damage assessment of the Russian missile strike on Reykjavik harbour on 2026-07-22."}'Every day a deterministic checker re-reads a sample of the corpus through the same projection the API and MCP server return — so these numbers are what a consumer actually receives, not an internal view of it. The result is recorded with the checker's version, and this is that record.
73.0%
passed every check
14.8%
raised a warning (74)
12.2%
failed a check (61)
0.8%
place name vs coordinate disagreed (4)
Measured on 2026-08-17 over a 7-day window, from a sample of 500 signals — a sample, not the whole corpus. Checker version read-time-v2. Daily measurement began on 2026-07-19 (30 days of record so far), so treat it as a current reading rather than a long track record.
A mapped point is not automatically a verified point. This is the honest breakdown for the same sample — note how many resolve only to a country centroid, which is a country-level answer wearing a pin.
Scores and enrichment are validated against allowed ranges and value sets, and the Daily World Brief passes a deterministic quality gate before publishing: a truncated or structurally-incomplete brief is held back and the previous good brief keeps serving, rather than publishing a half-finished one. You can check current data freshness and pipeline status at any time via the API (GET /api/v1/status) or the MCP status://current resource.
Every signal links to its original reporting; when you export or republish, keep those attributions. Satellite imagery shown or searched in Off-Nadir Delta comes from open programs (e.g. Copernicus Sentinel-1/2), which are free to use with attribution to the providing agency. Follow each provider's attribution and licensing terms when you redistribute derived imagery or products.
Use Delta to find, prioritize, and orient — what is happening, where it is concentrating, and what to look at next — then verify the specifics against the linked sources before acting. Do not treat a single signal, score, or generated summary as confirmed fact, and do not use the service for unlawful surveillance or targeting of individuals.
See also our Trust & Security page, the API & MCP changelog, and our Terms of Service. Questions about methodology or a security/quality review? Email support@offnadir-lab.com. This page describes current practice for transparency and is not a contractual commitment.