What we actually do with your incident report and your footage.
This page goes deeper than the home page for teams who want the methodology before a demo. If you are evaluating whether the analysis is defensible under audit or deposition, this is the operating detail.
Illustrative fragment. A claim and two evidence nodes — with one contradiction surfaced and one supporting reference.
What OpsCom analyzes
OpsCom ingests heterogeneous post-incident evidence: the written report, body-worn camera footage, fixed CCTV, CAD or dispatch logs, badge or access logs, witness statements, and GPS movement data. It reconciles every claim in the narrative against every available evidence stream, not just against one camera or one log.
We accept standard formats and do not require exclusive integrations or proprietary ingestion pipelines. Evidence remains yours, stored where you keep it; OpsCom reads the inputs, performs reconciliation, and returns a defensibility analysis without locking you into a vendor ecosystem. The output is evidence-linked and auditable by another reviewer, not a black box that only OpsCom can interpret.
Written report
The officer's narrative
Body-worn camera
Officer-perspective video
Fixed CCTV
Site surveillance footage
CAD / dispatch logs
Call timing and unit assignments
Badge / access logs
Entry, exit, and access timestamps
Witness statements
Written or transcribed accounts
GPS / geofencing data
Unit and personnel location traces
Supervisor sign-offs
Review and verification records
Illustrative inputs. Standard formats, no integrations required.
The methodology
Operational Truth Graph (OTG)
OpsCom constructs a structured representation of the incident. Every claim in the report becomes a node, every piece of supporting evidence becomes a node, and every relationship becomes a typed edge: a claim supported by a video timecode, a verification logged by a supervisor, a sequence of events ordered in time. The graph makes traceability explicit, so each claim either traces to evidence or it does not. Evidence nodes carry provenance metadata, timestamps, and source reliability so downstream contradictions inherit context. The model also preserves temporal order, allowing supervisors to see where a narrative sequence breaks even when the underlying events are real but misordered. Example: Officer's claim that backup arrived at 22:14 → links to badge log node showing entry at 22:18 → flagged as a temporal contradiction.
Contradiction Modeling Framework (CMF)
Contradictions in operational documentation are not all equal. A temporal slip under stress is different from a broken chain of custody. OpsCom classifies each detected contradiction into one of five formal types and assigns severity based on type, source reliability, and graph centrality. A minor factual mismatch on a peripheral claim is scored differently than a provenance break on a core use-of-force claim. This keeps the model aligned with how prosecutors, auditors, and contract reviewers actually prioritize risk.
- Temporal contradictions κ_temp
- A claimed time conflicts with logged or recorded times.
- Factual contradictions κ_fact
- A claim about what happened conflicts with what footage or logs show.
- Provenance contradictions κ_prov
- Chain of custody, authorship, or source attribution is broken or unverifiable.
- Verification contradictions κ_ver
- A claim asserts review or sign-off that no record corroborates.
- Completeness contradictions κ_comp
- A critical narrative element required for defensibility is missing.
The taxonomy is formally specified, not improvised marketing language. Each type maps to a distinct, non-reducible failure mode in operational documentation.
Defensibility Index (DI)
The Defensibility Index is a bounded score from 0 to 100 representing how defensible the documented incident is under structured challenge: audit, deposition, suppression motion, or contract review. The score decomposes into six theoretically grounded dimensions, each addressing a distinct failure mode with documented precedent. DI is not a compliance badge; it is a measurement that can be interrogated. Each dimension is scored independently so a reviewer can see whether the weakness is evidentiary, temporal, or procedural before the file leaves your control.
- R — Source Reliability — whether evidence sources can be trusted and traced.
- X — Cross-source Consistency — whether the report aligns with independent evidence streams.
- M — Completeness — whether critical narrative elements are present.
- T — Temporal Coherence — whether the sequence is internally consistent and plausible.
- V — Verification Coverage — whether claims requiring sign-off actually have it.
- A — Audit Traceability — whether authorship and access histories can be reconstructed.
The dimensions are formative, not reflective. A high score in five dimensions cannot fully offset a critical failure in the sixth.
Illustrative reference. Five contradiction types from the formal Contradiction Modeling Framework.
Illustrative reference. Six dimensions of the Defensibility Index, scored independently.
Standards alignment
The framework is aligned to ISO 18788:2015 and ANSI/ASIS PSC.1, both of which require defensible documentation as a compliance baseline. These standards mandate defensibility but do not provide a measurement framework; OpsCom's methodology is designed to fill that measurement gap. Alignment is expressed through explicit traceability, not through badges or marketing claims.
For law enforcement and security agencies only. We'll walk you through the analysis using your own scenarios.