Off-Nadir Delta
← Back to Home

Methodology & AI Limitations

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.

How are Delta Signals generated?

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:

  1. Ingest — worldwide reported events are pulled from open news-event data on a rolling basis.
  2. AI enrichment — each event is classified (category, escalation trend), given a severity and a GEOINT-relevance score, and assessed for whether a satellite could observe a physical mark, with a recommended sensor and collection window.
  3. Geolocation — the event is resolved to coordinates and a country, corrected from the raw feed where possible so the mapped point matches the described location.
  4. Source-linking — every signal keeps links to the original reporting so the evidence is one click away.

The Daily World Brief and the Delta Agent analyst are produced on top of this same corpus.

What do the scores mean?

Each signal carries several distinct scores — they measure different things and should not be collapsed into one number:

  • Event Severity (0–10) — how serious the event is in human/impact terms. A high-severity event is not necessarily observable from space.
  • GEOINT Relevance (0–10) — how useful the event is for geospatial/satellite analysis. This is deliberately separate from severity: a moderate-severity infrastructure strike can be highly GEOINT-relevant, while a high-severity diplomatic event may not be.
  • Satellite Observabilityobservable or not-observable: whether the event leaves a physical mark a satellite could image at all.
  • Geolocation Confidence — whether the mapped point was geo-checked and is consistent with the resolved country. Low-confidence fixes are flagged (API field geo_verified) so you can treat them as approximate.
  • Source Confidence — how well-corroborated the event is (number of independent sources and mentions).
  • Expected Information Gain (0–1) — how much a satellite look could reduce uncertainty, used to prioritize what is worth imaging.

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.

Where are AI models used?

AI (large language models) is used in three places:

  • Signal enrichment — category, severity, GEOINT relevance, escalation trend, geolocation correction, and satellite-collection recommendations.
  • The Daily World Brief — a synthesized narrative over the day's signals, produced under quality checks (see below).
  • Delta Agent — an agentic analyst that reasons over the corpus and returns a sourced brief.

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.

Is there a human in the loop?

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.

What are the known limitations?

  • False positives / noise — an event may be mis-categorized, over- or under-rated on severity, or duplicated across reports.
  • Mislocation — geolocation can resolve to the wrong place, especially for same-name locations; a signal may carry a lower geolocation confidence or land at country granularity only.
  • Source-dependent — coverage and framing inherit the biases and gaps of the underlying news reporting; absence of a signal is not evidence that nothing happened.
  • AI error — scores and summaries are model estimates and can be wrong; the source links are the ground truth, not the generated text.
  • Observability is a recommendation — the satellite-collection suggestion is an assessment of what could be imaged, not a guarantee of a usable image (weather, revisit, and licensing still apply).
  • Market tags are informational — any market-impact tag is context, not investment advice.

What happens when there is no evidence?

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.

Event that did not happenSearched, found nothing, declined to assess

Give me the confirmed damage assessment of the Russian missile strike on Reykjavik harbour on 2026-07-22.

**No evidence found for a Russian missile strike on Reykjavik harbour on 2026-07-22.** A live news search across 0 independent source families — including Reuters, AP, Washington Post, Euronews, Forbes, and others — covering the period 2026-07-22 to 2026-07-26 returned **zero reporting** of any Russian missile strike on Reykjavik, Iceland, on that date or in that timeframe. This event **cannot be unverified**. No damage assessment is possible because there is no unverified underlying incident to assess. The absence of any reporting across major international outlets — for what would be an extraordinarily significant attack on a NATO member capital — strongly suggests this event did not occur as described. If you have a specific source alleging this strike, please share it and I can attempt to corroborate or contest it. Alternatively, if you meant a different location or date, I can re-run the search. ⚠︎ Verification note: No independent source information is available for this event.

Run 2026-07-26 on server 1.6.0 · job 903588d4 · tools search_news×1, geocode_place×1 · 0 citation(s) · 22 tokens charged

Event that did happenSearched, corroborated, answered with sources

Search live news for Bordeaux wildfire evacuations between 2026-07-24 and 2026-07-26 and cite the sources you find.

**CONFIRMED:** Wildfires in the suburbs of **Bordeaux, France** triggered significant evacuations on **2026-07-25**, corroborated by 5 independent source families including Reuters, AP, The Guardian, CNBC, NBC News, and the Washington Post. **Scale:** Multiple outlets report that **more than 250,000 people** fled their homes across France and Spain combined as wildfires burned simultaneously in both countries. Wind conditions were cited as a key driver stoking the blazes. **Geographic scope:** Evacuations were concentrated in **suburbs around Bordeaux**; the event is part of a broader France–Spain wildfire episode during the same window. **No reporting found** for 2026-07-24 or 2026-07-26 specifically — all indexed articles are dated **2026-07-25 UTC**. **Imagery note:** Active fire and burn-scar signatures from an event of this scale would be detectable via NASA FIRMS thermal hotspots (near-real-time) and Sentinel-2 dNBR burn-scar mapping, subject to cloud cover over the Gironde region. ⚠︎ Verification note: Independently confirmed by 5 independent source families.

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.

Reproduce it

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."}'

How good is the data today?

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.

How the coordinates were arrived at

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.

  • Resolved to a town or district240 (48.0%)
  • Only the country was resolvable — the point is its centroid151 (30.2%)
  • Independently verified against the reported place name93 (18.6%)
  • Coordinate falls inside the reported country7 (1.4%)
  • Country disagreed with the coordinate3 (0.6%)
  • Geocoded but not cross-checked3 (0.6%)
  • Fell back to the dateline of the report2 (0.4%)
  • Admin region disagreed with the coordinate1 (0.2%)

What quality controls are in place?

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.

How are sources and imagery handled?

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.

How should I use the results?

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.