Red Flag Radar
Pilot specification

Portfolio-matched secured-credit enrichment

A scoped, paid engagement to evaluate — on your own book — whether IP-collateral events add decision-relevant signal to your counterparty assessment. No platform to adopt, nothing to integrate to decide.

Duration 60–90 days Scope a subset of your counterparties Effort on your side one file in, one review session

1What you provide

A list of the US counterparties you want assessed. Dirty legal names are fine — resolution is our job, not yours.

FieldRequiredNote
your_idyesyour opaque key, echoed back untouched
legal_nameyesas you hold it — abbreviations / suffixes handled
cik / ticker / duns / leioptionalany identifier sharpens matching to near-certain
state / country / domainoptionalcorroborating signals when present
anonymized outcomesoptionaldowngrade / claim / default / limit change — lets us compare our events to your own outcomes

Delivered as CSV or JSONL over an encrypted channel. Typical pilot size: 500–5,000 names.

2What you receive

Example — a real enriched counterparty

THORNYCROFT GILES AND COMPANY

8 secured-credit events on record, point-in-time:

  1. 1997-04-07 · initial_security_interest · pledge → Cornelison, Ronald F.
    THORNYCROFT, GILES & COMPANY, INC. recorded a security interest over 3 patents to CORNELISON, RONALD F., recorded 1997-04-07. · USPTO
  2. 1997-04-07 · initial_security_interest · pledge → Mars, Forrest E., JR.
    THORNYCROFT, GILES & COMPANY, INC. recorded a security interest over 3 patents to MARS, FORREST E., JR., recorded 1997-04-07. · USPTO
  3. 1997-04-07 · initial_security_interest · pledge → Collister Johnson, JR.
    THORNYCROFT, GILES & COMPANY, INC. recorded a security interest over 3 patents to COLLISTER JOHNSON, JR., recorded 1997-04-07. · USPTO
  4. 1997-07-24 · initial_security_interest · pledge → Pedersen, Einar
    THORNYCROFT, GILES & CO., INC. recorded a security interest over 3 patents to PEDERSEN, EINAR, recorded 1997-07-24. · USPTO
  5. 1998-10-21 · initial_security_interest · pledge → Mars, Forrest E. JR.
    THORNYCROFT, GILES & CO., INC. recorded a security interest over 3 patents to MARS, FORREST E. JR., recorded 1998-10-21. · USPTO
  6. 1999-01-06 · additional_collateral · pledge → Pedersen, Einar
    THORNYCROFT, GILES & CO., INC. recorded a security interest over 3 patents to PEDERSEN, EINAR, recorded 1999-01-06. · USPTO
  7. 1999-01-20 · initial_security_interest · pledge → Bullar, Roland K., II
    THORNYCROFT, GILES & CO., INC. recorded a security interest over 4 patents to BULLAR, ROLAND K., II, recorded 1999-01-20. · USPTO
  8. 1999-02-05 · initial_security_interest · pledge → Hamilton, Dorrance H.
    THORNYCROFT, GILES & CO., INC. recorded a security interest over 4 patents to HAMILTON, DORRANCE H., recorded 1999-02-05. · USPTO

A factual report of public USPTO records — illustrative of what you receive per matched name.

3How matching & signal are validated

4Data handling & security

  • Data minimization. We need names + identifiers, nothing about your exposures, limits or pricing.
  • Encrypted in transit and at rest; access limited to the operator running the pilot; no third-party processors beyond the hosting infrastructure.
  • Deleted at the end of the pilot (or on request), unless you choose to continue. Your list is never redistributed, resold, or used to train anything.
  • A data-processing agreement is available; processing location and retention terms are fixed in writing before any file is sent.

5What success looks like

The pilot is a measurement, not a demo. We agree the bar up front; these are the axes we score.

MeasureWhat it answers
Coverage on your bookshare of your counterparties with ≥1 secured-credit event, on recent years
Noveltyshare of events you did not already hold in your credit file
Audited precisioncorrectness of match, lender, role and delta on a stratified reviewed sample
Outcome comparisonour events set against your anonymized outcomes; where an event precedes one, the lead time — reported as fact, never as a prediction claim
Decision relevanceon named cases, would the signal have changed or informed a call?

If the honest answer is « not enough », that is a valid, cheap result — and you have lost nothing but a scoped engagement.

6Timeline

PhaseWeeksOutput
Scoping & DPA0–1fields, success bar, data terms agreed
Match & enrich1–3matched file + enrichment report
Joint review4–6audited precision, novelty, named cases
Decision7–9go / no-go on a recurring feed

7Beyond the pilot

If the signal proves its worth, the pilot converts to a recurring enrichment feed — your book re-scored as new recordations post. Candidate extensions, only if you ask: trademark security interests, further public registers, and delivery into your existing workflow.

Scope a pilot — contact@redfleet.fr

Factual reports of public USPTO records with a dated SEC crosswalk. A recorded security interest is a financing event, not an allegation of wrongdoing and not a prediction. Not affiliated with the USPTO, the SEC, or any government agency. Not investment or legal advice.