Signal-driven tracking
Requirements aren't static. Each one watches for relevant evidence and updates its status as new signal arrives, so you see movement instead of a frozen list.
Platform · Intelligence Requirements
Turn your standing Priority Intelligence Requirements into living, tracked items. ThreatSpire links each one to the adversaries that bear on it and drafts a grounded assessment the moment new evidence lands — so requirements move toward answered instead of gathering dust in a spreadsheet.
threatspire / requirements / PIR-004
Auto-drafted assessment
2 sources citedNew reporting from vendor-x confirms SILVERSCALE-117 has shifted to weaponized ISO attachments in phishing campaigns targeting Nordic logistics. This aligns with T1566.001 and matches observed telemetry from our sector in the past 14 days.
Phishing campaign targeting Nordic logistics — weaponized ISO attachments observed.
vendor-xInternal telemetry: 3 users in logistics division received ISO-lure emails in past 14d.
internalThe problem
Teams write down their priority questions once, then manually chase answers across feeds and inboxes. Requirements never get formally closed, no one notices when new reporting actually answers one, and leadership's questions outlive the analyst who wrote them. The intent is there — the follow-through isn't.
Pain
PIRs are created, filed, and forgotten. No one tracks when new evidence actually answers them.
Cost
Hours per week manually scanning feeds to see if anything relevant landed for a standing question.
How it works
Capture your org's standing questions as structured requirements, each tagged to the stakeholders who need them.
Anchor every requirement to your org context — your sector, assets, and what 'relevant' actually means for you.
Connect each requirement to the adversaries and activity that bear on it, drawing from their evidence timelines.
As new, relevant evidence arrives, ThreatSpire drafts a grounded assessment and advances the requirement's state automatically.
What you get
Requirements aren't static. Each one watches for relevant evidence and updates its status as new signal arrives, so you see movement instead of a frozen list.
When evidence lands, ThreatSpire drafts an assessment built from the cited sources — assistive and analyst-reviewed, never hallucinated.
Every requirement connects to the relevant adversaries and their source-linked timelines, so the answer and its evidence sit together.
Incoming reporting is judged against your environment, not a generic feed — only what actually matters to your org surfaces against a requirement.
Per-requirement source-tier allowlists decide which reporting can feed an answer, and stakeholder tags route each requirement to the people who asked.
Why it's different
Requirements stop being a to-do list and start resolving themselves as the evidence comes in. Status changes, drafts appear, and stakeholders get notified — without anyone manually updating a spreadsheet.
Every draft is anchored to cited sources and left under analyst control — assistance you can defend, not a black box. If it can't be traced to a report, it doesn't appear in the assessment.
Org-context grounding and source control mean relevance is defined by your environment, so analysts aren't drowning in noise. What matters to a healthcare SOC isn't the same as what matters to a finance team.
Closing the loop
Requirements connect your standing questions to the actor profiles, evidence, and priority questions across ThreatSpire.
Bring your PIRs — we'll show you how ThreatSpire keeps them moving.