Authorised context meets dated evidence.
Authorised project context meets dated external evidence and Earth Observation, including satellite observations.
For banks & institutional lenders
Construction finance · Real-estate collateral · Infrastructure
The physical world does not wait for your next review.
3BrainAI’s Construction Risk Intelligence (CRI) turns time-stamped Earth Observation and controlled project context into short, versioned Evidence Packs for European banks and institutional lenders. Initial focus: DACH, Benelux and Central Europe. Each pack separates observation, uncertainty and required human review, keeping the evidence trail defensible.
Before the next drawdown, make clear what the evidence supports – and what still needs checking.
- CRI
- The review-support product.
- Evidence Pack
- The versioned review record.
- The Brief
- A private walkthrough of prepared situations.
Incubation and technology programmes.
Historical programme
EY Startup Academy Frankfurt 2025
Completed by 3BrainAI Solutions company history
How Construction Risk Intelligence works
From evidence inputs to a record people can challenge.
Limits stay visible.
Provenance, sufficiency and uncertainty remain explicit before a conclusion is framed.
A short versioned record.
Findings become a short, versioned Evidence Pack with reasons and review state attached.
People retain authority.
The institution reviews, challenges and decides under its own policy and professional responsibility.
Public example · Real Copernicus data · Hypothetical review scenario
The roof is visible.
Is the milestone verified?
See how this public example separates a visible change from the evidence still needed for a construction drawdown review.
DEMO-EU-AT-FIS-01 · v0.2 terminology revision
Fischamend, Lower Austria
Vienna Airport logistics park observation area · Human review required
Did large roofed structures become visible within the observation area between the two dated public optical scenes?
The released pack retains the full hypothetical review question and mandatory qualifications.
WATCH – Evidence sufficiency
High – large roofed footprint change only
For this public-safe example, a hypothetical staged review question expects large roofed footprints to be visibly present within the selected observation area by T1.
This question is not taken from, and is not attributed to, any actual project contract, financing arrangement, drawdown request or acceptance record.
20 Aug 2023 → 19 Aug 2025
Two large rectangular roofed structures became visible within the selected observation area, replacing predominantly bare or construction-affected surface.
The imagery directionally supports the hypothetical review question. It does not establish building completion, quality, fit-out, occupancy, environmental compliance, contractual acceptance or payment eligibility. Documentary and engineering evidence remain necessary before any institution-specific conclusion.
Exact project boundary, engineering completion and payment eligibility remain unverified. WATCH refers to evidence sufficiency and the need for documentary review; it is not a negative project rating and does not indicate delay, breach or default.
Modified Copernicus Sentinel data 2023 and 2025 · same working retrieval envelope · record version v0.2 · public-safe illustrative reconstruction.
Mandatory qualifications – read the record boundary
Independent illustrative reconstruction based on public project information and Copernicus observations. No affiliation with, mandate from or validation by the project owner, operator, tenants or financing institutions is implied.
No actual project drawdown request, lender decision, contractual milestone, delay, breach, environmental assessment or project-performance assessment is represented.
Full source identifiers, hashes, retrieval envelope and reason codes remain in the two-page Evidence Pack.
Lausitz, Germany
Dated optical observations provide surface-visible context. Engineering completion, water quality and geotechnical condition cannot be determined from imagery.
German North Sea
Repeat-pass SAR provides dated surface-visible context. Bright radar targets do not by themselves confirm individual asset identity, installation or condition.
Governed boundary
A governed evidence workflow for accountable institutional review.
Inputs do not become conclusions by ingestion.
Purpose, identity, permission and traceability remain attached before evidence is packaged.
Versioned Evidence Pack
Project and portfolio context
EO and approved external sources
Specialist inputs with traceability
Target design: institutional roles, evidence and review actions remain separate. Operational deployment is subject to institution-specific validation.
Founder context
Built from both sides of accountability.
Dusan Prikryl founded 3BrainAI after working on both the physical and digital sides of accountability.
His experience spans owner-side responsibility for complex physical assets and later digital products, data operations, analytics and AI.
Historical experience context, not CRI deployments or product outputs.
Read the founder and company contextMeasurement before promises
Measure the review, not the promise.
A bounded engagement defines what it will observe before it claims an outcome.
No result is asserted here.Review remains with the institution.
CRI supports a bounded evidence workflow; the institution retains its own policy, professional responsibility and decision.
Source and uncertainty travel together.
Source, date, version, uncertainty and review state remain attached to the evidence record.
Outcomes need their limits.
Future outcomes are published only with scope, period, source and limitations.