Where should we look first?
Narrow a broad watch or warning to places that warrant closer review, so the team can focus its next readiness discussion.
USE CASES / EMERGENCITY AI
From a developing threat to a focused briefing.
Two documented operational tests show how the Resilitix team used EmergenCITY AI to investigate potential exposure as threats approached. The hurricane example also includes team-supported screening after impact. Explore the questions, assessments, and retrospective reviews—and the planning discussions and local checks this work can inform. Human teams retain responsibility for decisions.
Screen → Prioritize → Brief → ReviewThe system runs the first pass. Your team makes the call.
01 / Case studies
See the work in context.
Real event conditions. Documented briefs. A clear view of what the screening showed—and what the review could establish.
Operational test · Sep 28 – Oct 1, 2026
Southwest flash floods
Where to look first
Anticipatory flood screening during the Southwest flash floods
Flash flooding · Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, Texas
As a threat approaches
<15 min
total assessment duration
8 briefs
in four days
6 corridors
in the first brief
Read the case study →
Operational test · Oct 7–10, 2026
Hurricane Isaias
From regional warnings to local priorities
Anticipatory and post-landfall screening for Hurricane Isaias
Hurricane · Surge, inland flooding, wind and outages · Five states
As a threat approaches · After impact
After-impact screening was team-supported.
<15 min
total assessment duration
8 briefs
in four days
12 ZIP codes
in the pre-landfall first tier
Read the case study →
The figures above describe brief preparation and screening scope. Each case study separately reports retrospective findings and their limitations.
02 / Operational use cases
Four questions behind the work.
Who and what may be exposed?
Connect hazard signals with people, structures, and essential services to identify questions for local verification.
What should we reassess as the evidence changes?
Revisit the assessment as suitable evidence changes, then examine what it means for the next planning question.
What is the evidence—and what still needs checking?
Review the sources and assumptions behind a finding, identify gaps, and define the next local check or specialist question.
Explore how these questions were addressed in the flood and hurricane case studies above.
03 / From question to evidence
A repeatable workflow.
A human decision.
In these tests, the Resilitix team examined hazard and exposure layers, compared supporting signals and official alerts, and prepared briefs as the evidence changed. After the events, the team compared earlier screening with reported impacts. Each step made the findings, remaining questions, and basis for further review more explicit.
- 01
Screen
Ask focused questions about forecast river flows, modeled flood events, surge, outage potential, residents and structures.
- 02
Converge
Compare hazard and exposure layers, look for corroborating signals, and avoid double-counting overlapping flood cells.
- 03
Prioritize
Build a short list for attention and local verification using official alerts, exposure and the evidence available.
- 04
Brief
Prepare a concise briefing that shows the priorities, supporting evidence and known gaps. Refresh it as advisories change.
- 05
Check
After the event, compare the earlier briefs with reported impacts. State the matching rules and limits alongside the findings.
04 / How to read the evidence
Useful evidence, with its limits in view.
Operational test, not adoption
Resilitix ran the screens and prepared the briefs for emergency-management users. These were operational tests; partner decisions and resulting outcomes were not assessed.
Screening signals and reported impacts
Forecast and modeled exposure maps show where impacts could occur. Post-event maps show reported impacts compiled from news, official sources and NWS products. The captions identify which kind of evidence you are seeing.
Retrospective review of one event
The review figures describe reported impacts within areas flagged beforehand; they do not establish predictive accuracy or operational decision outcomes, and non-impacted flagged areas and false-alarm burden were not assessed. Method and impact lists are available on request.
Traceable figures
Figures are linked to dated runs, brief completion records or the team’s post-event review. Completion times describe when a brief was prepared; they do not document when a partner received or acted on it.
Bring your operational question
Bring your next planning question.
Start with the area you cover, the question you need to answer, and the planning task the assessment should help advance. Explore a scoped operational test with the Resilitix team.
Discuss an operational test
Opens your email app · info@resilitix.ai
EmergenCITY AI is designed for screening-grade resilience intelligence, planning, preparedness, monitoring, and decision support. It does not replace official forecasts, emergency command decisions, engineering studies, regulatory determinations, or local expert judgment.
The system runs the first pass. Your team makes the call. Resilience intelligence on demand.
emergencity.ai · info@resilitix.ai · EmergenCITY AI · Geospatial Resilience Intelligence