For Security Operators and Law Enforcement

When an incident is questioned, you don't get time to prepare. You get a deadline and a question.

Your last incident report was filed.
Has anyone correlated it with the footage?
The gap is already there — whether anyone has asked or not.

OpsCom is evidence-linked reconstruction — every finding source-cited, every gap flagged — so you know what your documentation actually proves before someone who wasn't there has to decide.

Run your last questioned incident — before someone else defines the narrative for you.

Also available for Law Enforcement and Military
For private security companiesIncident Run: $2,000Credited to subscription
Encrypted & confidential 2-hour turnaround $2,000 credited to annual Perception discrepancies flagged

You document everything. You verify nothing.

When documentation can't be verified, the company pays — in contracts, legal fees, insurance increases, and reputation damage that outlasts the incident itself.

Contract risk

Client questions the incident report. You can't show the verified timeline. The conversation shifts from 'explain what happened' to 'prove what happened.' That's when contract review starts.

Legal exposure

Attorney requests timestamp-verified correlation. You have pieces — the report, the footage, the logs. But you don't have the picture assembled. You're explaining gaps instead of answering questions.

Financial cost

One contract termination costs more than six years of incident reconstruction. One settlement demands more than a year of documentation protection. The math is simple — but only if you know where you stand before the question arrives.

The difference between a defensible incident and a lost contract isn't what happened — it's whether you can show what happened before you have to prove it.

See if your last incident holds up →

Read: How one operator lost a contract in 30 days

A client commissioned a routine review. Found gaps between logged patrols and CCTV. Contract terminated for cause within 30 days. Because documentation that can't be verified isn't protection — it's liability.

Read case study →

Law Enforcement: The officer who lost more than the incident

A use of force report was filed. No one correlated it with the footage. The officer wasn't wrong — but the documentation couldn't survive scrutiny. Because memory of stressful events is unreliable. The report was filed before anyone checked.

Read case study →

Documented. Not verified.

In private security, the gap between documentation and reconstruction is where contracts are lost, legal exposure grows, and careers get derailed — not because the report was wrong, but because no one built the picture in time.

What separates the two outcomes

Without OpsComWith OpsCom
Position when questions arriveScrambling to understand what you haveResponse package ready before the call
Legal escalationAttorney requests documentation, you build it under pressurePosition already defined and documented
Timeline gapsFound during client reviewFound and addressed before submission

These aren't rare events. They're the cost of not knowing.

The contract was gone in 30 days.

Contract terminated for cause. Six-figure annual contract lost. Insurance premiums increased at renewal.

The logs were filed. The timeline was never reconstructed. The contract was gone in 30 days.

The response cost more than the incident itself.

Settlement demand received. Guard's certification under review. Legal costs accumulated while scrambling to build the picture.

The report was filed. The timeline was never reconstructed. The response cost more than the incident itself.

Fourteen months under oversight review.

Contract under review for material breach. Leadership testified before a government committee. Fourteen months under enhanced oversight.

The reports were filed. The full picture was never assembled. Fourteen months of uncertainty followed.

Every one of these started with a filed report. None of them had the full picture assembled before the questions arrived.

See how OpsCom handles this →

If any of this sounds familiar:

A client sends an attorney letter about your incident

You're preparing for an IA interview and you don't know if the footage will match the report

You won the incident. You're not sure you can prove it.

If any of this sounds familiar, you're exactly who this is for.

Not sure if you need this? Submit one incident — we'll tell you if it would hold up under timestamp-verified scrutiny.

How it works

Know what your evidence proves — before a client, attorney, or oversight committee asks.

Step 1

Upload your documentation

Upload your report, CCTV, and statements. OpsCom correlates everything against the full timeline.

Step 2

See where your timeline holds — and where it doesn't

OpsCom shows exactly where your documentation aligns with footage — and where the timeline needs clarification.

Step 3

Get your evidence package

Get the supervisor-ready reconstruction before you have to respond — position already defined, sources already cited, gaps already flagged.

Unlike manual review, OpsCom correlates everything before you have to respond — so you know exactly what your documentation proves before the questions arrive.

OpsCom reads embedded video timestamps and correlates them against your report's sequence — flagging any divergence between what was written and what the footage shows.

See where your documentation can defend itself — and where it cannot

Missing CCTV. Contradicting witnesses. The officer did everything right. But can you prove it?

Every finding source-cited. Every gap flagged. Before the attorney asks — not after.

THE CHALLENGE

From: Rivers Legal Group

To: Head of Security

Subject: Use of Force Review — Incident March 12, 14:32

"We represent Mr. Williams in connection with the use of force incident involving your security officer on March 12th at the downtown parking garage. Our client states your officer used excessive force without any warning. We have witness statements supporting this claim. We note that CCTV coverage of the actual force deployment is unavailable. We require timestamp-verified documentation of the full sequence — and will pursue all available remedies."

Two witnesses. Contradicting accounts. Key CCTV missing.

OPSCOM ANALYSIS

Officer's account:

Verbal warnings issued. Subject refused to comply. OC spray deployed to effect lawful detention. Subject was non-compliant throughout.

Witness A (client):

Claims officer used force "without any warning" — contradicts officer's account on verbal commands.

Witness B (neutral):

Supports officer's account. Heard verbal warnings. Confirms subject non-compliance. Contradicts Witness A.

⚠ CCTV gap — force deployment moment not captured on any camera angle

Timestamp-verified. Source-cited. Credibility analyzed.

OpsCom shows you how to defend this — before the attorney exploits the gap.

WHAT YOU NOW KNOW

What the reconstruction surfaces:

Verbal warnings at 14:32, 14:34, 14:36 — confirmed on camera
Subject non-compliance verified
CCTV gap at moment of deployment — cannot verify
Witness A contradicts Witness B on key detail

What you can now do:

• Prepare the officer for attorney questions with verified context

• Flag the CCTV gap proactively rather than being surprised by it

• Address the witness discrepancy before the attorney frames it

• Know exactly what your evidence proves — and what it doesn't

See the full reconstruction report

Partially defensible — OpsCom shows you exactly where and why

You know the gap exists. Now you know how to address it.

The officer did everything right. But missing CCTV and contradicting witnesses mean the documentation cannot prove it — without OpsCom.

A six-figure contract. An attorney letter. A certification review. The gap was always there. Now you know exactly where it is — and what you can and cannot defend.

Questions that keep PPOs and supervisors up at night

If you've had to explain an incident to legal, some of these will sound familiar.

The incident that costs you the contract is the one you didn't see coming.

A routine client audit. An attorney letter. A certification review. Every one of these starts with a report that looked complete.

Find out where you're exposed — before someone else finds it for you. $2,000 credited to any annual subscription.

Encrypted & confidential. No long-term contract required.