Resolve · Module III
Your contracts say
one thing. Does the
protection hold?
Resolve checks whether your asset is actually covered — not just on paper. Contracts, operational reports, O&M compliance, bank covenants, insurance conditions. Two views, one platform: portfolio-level exposure across all assets, and per-asset detail down to every open flag, every closing claim window, and every action with a cost attached.
235+
structured fields per asset
2–4×
per year review cycle
1
platform across the full portfolio
Two views. One platform.
Everything you need to know — across the portfolio and inside each asset.
All assets in one view. Aggregate risk exposure, open flags ranked by urgency and financial impact, claim windows approaching across the portfolio, and lender reporting status. The portfolio view is designed for the question: where does attention need to go today, and what does it cost if it doesn't?
Total open flags across portfolio
14
Claim windows closing within 90 days
3
Estimated exposure if unaddressed
€1.4M
Next lender report due
Jun 30
Portfolio view · Risk ranking
Assets ranked by exposure
Every asset in the portfolio shown against its current open flags and estimated financial exposure. Red means action is required now. Amber means attention is needed this review cycle. Blue means active monitoring, no immediate action.
→Critical flags sorted to the top — largest financial exposure first
→Claim windows with days remaining visible at a glance
→Each row links directly to the asset's full detail view
Portfolio view · Claim windows
What is closing — and when
Warranty claim windows, LD activation deadlines, and notification obligations across the full portfolio, ordered by days remaining. A claim window that closes is permanent. Once the deadline passes, the contractual right to claim is extinguished regardless of what the underlying contract says.
→All time-sensitive obligations in one view
→Days remaining calculated against contract terms
→Required action and responsible party named per item
Portfolio view · Lender reporting
Reporting built into the platform — not assembled by hand
Lender reporting requirements — contractual compliance documentation, warranty status, O&M obligation fulfilment — are tracked against the reporting schedule and generated directly from the platform. No manual assembly. No last-minute document collection. Each report is structured against the lender's requirements and timestamped for the record.
→Reporting schedule tracked per lender per asset
→Contractual compliance documentation generated automatically
→Warranty status and O&M fulfilment included per report
→Quarterly delta report showing what changed since last review
One asset, full detail. Every contractual commitment read against what is actually happening — which warranties are enforceable today, which obligations have no owner, which claim windows are still open and for how long. Each flag comes with a required action, a responsible party, and a cost attached to inaction.
Asset view · 235+ structured fields
Risk · Contractual
Warranty baseline not established
The degradation guarantee requires a documented commissioning baseline to be enforceable. The data exists in SCADA — it has no owner and has never been extracted. The claim window closes in 47 days.
→ €580k exposure · 47 days to act
Risk · Financial
LD clause present — trigger conditions missing
The contract includes liquidated damages for late delivery. No milestone structure defines what triggers them. Delay cost defaults to the owner with no contractual basis to claim.
→ Full delay exposure · no recourse
Risk · Obligations
Annual inspection documentation — 2023 missing
O&M obligations require annual thermographic inspection documentation. 2023 filing is absent. Missing documentation voids the related warranty provision. Retrievable — requires action this cycle.
→ Warranty void risk · retrievable
Risk · Contractual
Retained capacity — agreed verbally, absent from contract
≥70% retained capacity at year 10 was agreed in negotiation. The executed agreement contains no written commitment. One letter to the OEM resolves it — but only before the warranty extension window closes.
→ Guarantee unenforceable · addressable now
Risk · Regulatory
Grid code compliance filing — not confirmed
Annual grid code compliance reporting is a permit condition. No confirmation that the 2024 filing was submitted. Non-compliance risks permit standing. Requires verification this review cycle.
→ Permit risk · verification required
Risk · TCO
Component-only warranty — unbudgeted OPEX
Warranty covers parts replacement only. Labour, crane, and mobilisation costs fall to the owner from day one — absent from the original budget model. Permanent OPEX item, recurring.
→ €10–20k/event · model adjustment needed
What Resolve checks
Three layers.
Is the protection
actually holding?
A contract that says the right things is not the same as protection that holds. Resolve checks all three layers that determine whether your asset is actually covered — what the contracts commit to, whether the commitments are being met in practice, and whether the full protection structure is intact. Per asset, per review cycle, 235+ structured fields.
Layer 01 · Contracts
What was promised — and whether it's enforceable
Every warranty, LD clause, performance guarantee, and post-COD obligation read against the signed documents. Gaps identified, enforceability checked, claim windows mapped. A guarantee that cannot be triggered is not a guarantee.
→ Warranty enforceability per clause
→ LD trigger conditions checked
→ Verbal commitments absent from contract flagged
→ Responsibility matrix gaps identified
Layer 02 · Reports & compliance
Whether everyone is doing what they're supposed to
O&M reports checked against contractual obligations. Annual maintenance documentation verified. Grid code compliance filings confirmed. Inspection records present. A warranty that requires annual documentation to remain valid is only as good as the last filing — Resolve checks whether it exists.
→ O&M report obligations vs actual submissions
→ Annual inspection documentation present
→ Grid code and regulatory filings confirmed
→ Warranty void triggers identified and monitored
Layer 03 · Full protection structure
Whether the bank, insurance, and contracts are all aligned
Bank covenants checked against current asset status. Insurance conditions verified — whether all warranty void triggers are being avoided, whether coverage is intact. Conflicts between O&M scope and EPC warranty identified. The question is not whether each document is correct in isolation — it is whether the full protection structure holds together.
→ Bank covenant compliance status
→ Insurance conditions — coverage gaps identified
→ O&M and EPC warranty conflicts flagged
→ Refinancing documentation readiness per asset
| Risk | Layer | What it looks like | What Resolve does | Urgency | Cost |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Warranty unenforceable | Contracts | Guarantee in the contract. No commissioning baseline. Supplier disputes any claim. | Flags the missing baseline. Maps the claim window. Produces the required action with contractual basis. | Critical | €0 warranty |
| O&M report missing | Reports | Annual O&M documentation required to keep warranty valid. 2023 filing absent from the record. | Checks every O&M obligation against actual submissions. Missing filings flagged with warranty void risk and retrieval path. | Elevated | Warranty void |
| Insurance condition breached | Protection | Insurance policy requires annual thermographic inspection. Inspection was not carried out in 2024. | Checks insurance conditions against compliance documentation. Flags gaps that risk invalidating coverage. | Critical | Cover void |
| Bank covenant at risk | Protection | Loan covenant requires asset to maintain ≥95% availability. Actual availability tracking not confirmed. | Maps covenant requirements against documented asset performance. Gaps between obligation and evidence flagged. | Elevated | Covenant breach |
| O&M and EPC warranty conflict | Protection | EPC warranty void if third-party O&M. O&M is a separate contract with a different party. | Reads contracts against each other. Conflicts between O&M scope and EPC warranty conditions identified and flagged. | Critical | Warranty void |
| Claim window closing | Contracts | Contractual right to claim exists. Notification deadline approaching. No action taken. | All claim windows tracked with days remaining. Required action named. Cost of missing the deadline quantified. | Critical | Right lost |
| Lender documentation gap | Reports | Asset approaching refinancing window. Required documentation not assembled. Refinancing delayed. | Tracks lender documentation requirements per asset. Gaps flagged with lead time needed to close them before the window opens. | Elevated | Refi delayed |
Lender reporting
Built into
the platform.
Not assembled by hand.
Lender reporting requirements are tracked against the schedule and generated directly from Resolve. Contractual compliance documentation, warranty status, O&M obligation fulfilment — structured against lender requirements, not assembled from scattered documents the week before it is due.
Lender reporting · built in
Structured · automated · on scheduleReporting schedule
Every deadline tracked, per lender per asset
Reporting obligations vary by lender, by asset, and by contract. Resolve tracks each schedule independently — no obligation falls through because it belongs to a different asset or a different financing arrangement.
Report content
Generated from the platform, not assembled manually
Each report includes warranty status, O&M compliance documentation, open flag register, and contractual obligation fulfilment. Structured against lender requirements, timestamped, and ready to send.
Quarterly delta
What changed since the last review
Every review cycle produces a delta report showing what is new, what has been resolved, and what has moved in urgency since the previous report. Lenders see a consistent, structured record of how the portfolio is being managed.
How it works
Periodic. Document-based.
No site visits.
Resolve runs 2–4 times per year per asset — or more frequently for assets with active claim windows or approaching deadlines. Each review cycle updates the risk register, refreshes the lender report, and produces an updated owner action list. Entirely document-based. No live data connections required.
Send the documents
EPC agreement, supply contracts, O&M, warranties — and any correspondence that may have added commitments. We work from what exists.
Three-layer review
Contracts, reports, and protection structure — all three layers checked. 235+ structured fields per asset. Open flags ranked by urgency and financial impact.
Clarify and confirm
We come back with specific questions — context only you can provide. No guesswork, no over-explaining. Typically a short call or written exchange.
Platform updated
Portfolio and asset views updated. Lender report generated. Owner action list prioritised. Delta report produced against the previous cycle.
The output
Per review cycle.
Per asset.
Every review cycle produces four structured outputs — available in the platform immediately after the review is complete.
Risk register
Every open flag per asset across all three layers — contracts, reports, and full protection structure. Each one with urgency, required action, responsible party, and cost of inaction.
Owner action list
Prioritised by urgency and financial impact. Each action names the counterparty, the contractual basis, the deadline, and the consequence of not acting — across contracts, compliance, and protection gaps.
Lender report
Structured against lender requirements. Warranty status, O&M compliance, covenant documentation, insurance coverage confirmation. Ready to submit — not to review internally first.
Quarterly delta
What changed since the previous review — new flags, resolved items, urgency movements, claim windows that opened or closed, compliance status changes. Consistent record for lenders and investment committees.
The full product
Resolve is Module III.
The risk position designed in Scenario Planner and the procurement record from GRID carry forward into Resolve. One continuous line of control from investment decision to operating reality.
I · Before procurement
Scenario Planner
Design your investment around what you're willing to carry. Technical posture, CAPEX benchmarks, risk position, and RFQ — before any vendor sees anything.
Go to Scenario Planner →
II · Procurement
Procurement
Supplier matching, four-dimension evaluation, risk premium engine, TCO modelling — across three rounds, in 3–6 weeks. Every gap priced before you sign.
Go to Procurement →
III · Active
Resolve
You are here. Portfolio risk platform for assets already running — two views, per-review cycle, lender reporting built in.
Know where the risks are
in your portfolio today.
Send us one asset to start. We run the first review, show you what's open, and give you the owner action list. No ongoing commitment required to see what's there.
Document-based · no site visit · first review typically 1 week