Use case · Relationship Mapping
See your 4th, 5th, and Nth-tier dependencies.
Tier-1 looks fine. The risk lives one tier deeper. Cyb3r Operations maps tier-2 to tier-N from observable evidence, no supplier disclosure required, and scores concentration by service, geography, and regulator.
From the field
“When the regulator asked about our concentration in cloud, I couldn't have answered. Three tier-2 suppliers sat behind fourteen of our tier-1 vendors. Until I saw the map, the question didn't even make sense.”
Chief Risk Officer · UK Financial Services
Where it sits in the platform
The moment
The board paper that needed an answer the firm didn't have.
The CRO had a week to draft the next quarter's risk paper. The audit committee had asked one question: where is our concentration risk? The team could list the tier-1 critical suppliers. Beyond that, the answer was "we would need to ask each supplier for their subprocessor list."
By the next morning, the Cyb3r Operations map was on her screen. Three tier-2 suppliers, a cloud platform, an authentication provider, and a foundation-model vendor, sat behind fourteen of her tier-1 critical vendors. One supplier failure could have cascaded across four regulated business services at once.
What was actually true
- ·Tier-1 vendor list complete, tier-2+ a black box
- ·Subprocessor disclosures patchy, six to twelve months stale
- ·Concentration risk invisible until an event surfaces it
- ·Board asked about nth-tier; the map didn't exist
What changed
What Relationship Mapping put on the CRO's screen.
Tier-N visibility from observable evidence. Map tier-1 to tier-N from DNS, IP, certificate chains, integrations, and public subprocessor lists. Not from a survey nobody fills in.
Concentration scoring by service, geography, regulation. Surface where the business depends on too few suppliers, in too few places, under too few regulators.
Network-effect detection. Identify the tier-2 suppliers sitting behind multiple tier-1 vendors, the MOVEit and Snowflake pattern, before the next one hits.
More it does in the background
What-if modelling.
Pick a supplier, see the business services that go offline, the regulatory exposure, and the continuity-tolerance breach.
Continuous refresh.
The map is current as of your last business day, not last quarter's review cycle.
Independent of supplier disclosure.
Tier-2+ visibility holds even when tier-1 suppliers refuse to share their own subprocessor list.
How the map came together
From 23 tier-1 suppliers to a five-tier graph.
No supplier disclosure required. The concentration view ready for the audit committee in three days.
01
Input
Tier-1 vendor list, 23 critical suppliers across the regulated business services.
02
Mapping layer
Outside-in observation, subprocessor inference, business-service mapping.
03
Output
A five-tier graph with concentration scored by service, geography, and regulator. Three tier-2 nodes flagged as systemic.
Where it left them
5 tiers
mapped from observable evidence
3 nodes
tier-2 suppliers flagged as systemic
0 surveys
required to build the map
Who this lands for
The roles that pull value from this use case.
Each persona reads it slightly differently. Click through to the role-specific page for the full picture.
For Chief Risk Officer
Walks into the audit committee with an answer to concentration risk.
Open the Chief Risk Officer pageFor Vendor Management
Sees nth-tier risk in the platform the team already runs the portfolio in.
Open the Vendor Management pageFor GRC
Maps DORA Article 28 and PRA SS1/21 against an actual graph, not a survey.
Open the GRC pageQuestions buyers asked
Questions risk leaders ask in the first conversation.
Outside-in observation: DNS, IP, certificate chains, integrations, public subprocessor lists, breach intelligence. We don't depend on a tier-1 supplier handing over their subprocessor list.
Three dimensions: service (how many critical business services depend on this supplier), geography (how concentrated is the footprint), and regulatory (how many regulatory regimes apply at once).
GRC platforms map what the supplier tells you. Cyb3r Operations maps what the environment tells us, including tier-2+ relationships the tier-1 supplier hasn't disclosed.
First-class. We surface subprocessor dependencies the same way we surface tier-1, observed, not asked for.
Yes. Pick a supplier, see the business services that go offline, the regulatory exposure, and the continuity-tolerance breach.
Continuously refreshed. Mapping is not a once-a-quarter exercise.
More to read
Where to go next.
platform
Relationship Mapping
The platform capability that builds the tier-N graph from observable evidence.
Openpersona
Chief Risk Officer
Carries third-party concentration on the enterprise risk register.
Openindustry
Financial services
DORA Article 28, PRA SS1/21, supervisor dialogue. Where nth-tier visibility is non-negotiable.
Opencompare
Compare supply-chain mapping platforms
How outside-in mapping outperforms supplier-disclosure-led platforms on tier-2+ visibility.
OpenComparing alternatives?
Comparing supply-chain mapping platforms?
See where outside-in mapping outperforms supplier-disclosure-led platforms on tier-2+ visibility.
Map one of your real supplier tiers.
30-minute walkthrough, no commitment. We run outside-in mapping against your top 50 suppliers before the call.