GRYPS
Generate Signature

GRYPS Methodology v0.6 · gryps-signature-v0.4

GRYPS Research Methodology

GRYPS is an experimental Connectivity Intelligence framework for Nordic, Arctic, and Icelandic remote operations. It connects research context, reference data, and a deterministic scoring model to produce indicative Resilience Signatures — not procurement advice, not a site survey, and not live network monitoring.

Documentation framework GRYPS Methodology v0.6. Scoring engine deterministic · v0.4 remains reproducible for identical inputs.

GRYPS is an experimental research prototype. Results are indicative and should not be interpreted as commercial procurement advice, coverage certification, or engineering advice.

68.2°N 27.4°E70°NLEOMEOGEO
Modeled polar geometry — latitude rings and LEO / MEO / GEO orbital paths. Interactive highlight · animated passes. Scoring uses deterministic Model v0.4 weights, not live RF.Highlight an orbit class to see how geometry informs Signature weighting.

Research posture

GRYPS is non-commercial R&D. Recommendations are indicative outputs of a research prototype. They support human judgement for readiness documentation; they do not certify compliance, sell terminals, or replace professional connectivity engineering.

Evidence chain

Every Signature follows the same research path. The chain is explicit so operators can see how environment and published knowledge become a scored recommendation.

  1. 1 · Operating environment

    Latitude, sector (forestry, maritime, mining, …), autonomy, and criticality define the mission envelope. High Arctic sites weight polar-capable paths more heavily than mid-Nordic sites.

  2. 2 · Relevant research

    GRYPS Knowledge notes and the Research Library document high-latitude constraints (GEO elevation loss, LEO broadband vs polar narrowband, redundancy under autonomy). These are editorial research artefacts aligned to Model v0.4 — not vendor white papers.

  3. 3 · Connectivity characteristics

    Documented providers and orbital classes map to catalog confidence and reference latency/geometry bands. Characteristics describe modeled posture, not measured RF at the pin.

  4. 4 · GRYPS scoring factors

    Deterministic Model v0.4 scores two layers: Site Conditions (fixed latitude + forestry elevation demerit) and Mitigation Quality (independent-path redundancy, provider/path independence, profile–autonomy alignment), then applies hard caps. Mission priorities may re-rank recommendations; they do not change the Signature score.

  5. 5 · Provider recommendation

    Structured recommendation package: overall fit, confidence, reasons, trade-offs, alternatives, and comparison bands — with source attribution on the Signature itself.

Evidence kinds

The same chip vocabulary appears on Signatures, Research assessments, the Map, and Providers. Same label = same meaning everywhere.

  • MODELLEDDeterministic GRYPS model output — score, grade, risks, or ranks reproducible for identical inputs. Not live RF.
  • MEASUREDThird-party measured or surveyed reference data (e.g. Bittimittari, EU-DEM). Never blended into the 0–100 Signature.
  • RESEARCHEditorial research artefact — Knowledge note or Research Library assessment.
  • ILLUSTRATIVEIndicative commentary, demo, or prose polish — not a measurement or coverage guarantee.
  • DERIVEDComputed from model outputs or catalog rules (e.g. capacity band from grade) — not a direct measurement.

Source attribution & data freshness

  • Model — GRYPS deterministic engine (Model v0.4 / deterministic · v0.4); score/grade/risks/ranks are reproducible for identical inputs.
  • Catalog — curated provider index; confidence = assessment/data basis, not availability %. No commercial relationships.
  • Datasets — EU-DEM (Copernicus/EEA via OpenTopoData) for terrain evidence; Bittimittari (Traficom, CC BY 4.0) for Finnish municipality seeds only. Neither is blended into the 0–100 Signature.
  • Research — GRYPS Knowledge articles and Research Library assessments; editorial freshness noted on each Signature evidence panel.
  • Reference — public orbital-class latency/geometry conventions for LEO / MEO / GEO commentary.

Assumptions

  • Clear sky-view and correct antenna installation unless contradicted by separate terrain evidence.
  • Provider catalog confidence is a research heuristic, not a measured site availability rate.
  • Optional language-model text may polish the recommendation paragraph only — never numbers or ranks.
  • Coordinates are interpreted inside the Nordic / Arctic / Iceland research envelope.

Limitations

  • Not a substitute for an on-site RF / sky-view survey.
  • Not live constellation telemetry, outage feeds, or a coverage SLA.
  • Not insurance, certification, procurement advice, or legal advice (including NIS2/CER).
  • Not for sale — no company, no revenue; research demonstration only.

Confidence

Assessment confidence on the evidence panel reflects confidence in the assessment/data basis (catalog fit, documented paths, latitude constraints). It is not a probability of service availability and not an SLA.

Deterministic Model v0.4 formula (deterministic · v0.4)

The Resilience Score is deterministic and reproducible for the same inputs (Deterministic Model v0.4). Optional language-model text may polish the recommendation paragraph only — it never changes score, grade, risks, or ranked providers.

Score = Site Conditions (0–20) + Mitigation Quality (0–80), then hard caps, clamped 0–100. Points earned, higher = better. An independent path requires a different orbit class, ground segment, or failure mode.

  • Layer A — Site Conditions (0–20, fixed) — Latitude band (≤60°N → 20; ≤65 → 16; ≤70 → 12; >70 → 8) plus forestry elevation demerit (−4 below 300 m). Operators cannot change these; the label translates points earned (e.g. 8/20 → harsh).
  • Layer B — Redundancy / independent paths (0–35) — Remapped from the v0.3 redundancy curve (0 / 8 / 22+orbit-mix / 28) onto a 0–35 scale. Same constellation × two terminals still counts as one path.
  • Layer B — Provider / path independence (0–25) — Remapped from catalog provider confidence (avg × 0.30 on the old 0–30 scale). GEO above 70°N uses degraded confidence. Confidence = assessment/data basis — not availability %.
  • Layer B — Profile–autonomy alignment (0–20) — Remapped from operational profile (manual 15 · remote-operated 11 · mixed 8 · autonomous 5 on the old 0–15 scale).

Grades

A ≥85 · B 70–84 · C 55–69 · D 40–54 · F <40 (spec band E maps to F in the UI).

Hard caps

  • Safety-critical + autonomous + <2 providers → score capped at 50.
  • Safety-critical + exactly 1 provider → capped at 60.
  • Latitude >72°N with GEO-only providers → capped at 45.

Caps are enforced in the deterministic engine (and re-checked in code) so edge-case demos cannot bypass homepage claims.

Risk factors and ranked providers

Up to four risk factors are derived from redundancy, latitude/GEO, sector, autonomy, and score vs safety threshold. Backup providers not in the current setup are ranked by confidence minus latitude and orbital-overlap penalties, then optional mission-priority bonuses. GRYPS has no commercial relationship with any provider listed.

Two scores, not one blend

The Resilience Score is the deterministic Signature above. Terrain penalty from EU-DEM via OpenTopoData is deterministic and displayed separately. Finnish Bittimittari speed/latency applies only to seeded municipality sites — not ad-hoc coordinates.

Versioning (monitoring later)

Every Signature carries issuedAt, modelVersion (gryps-signature-v0.4), and inputHash. Monitoring is the same engine at T1, T2 — not a second product. Live drift alerting is not productized.

Research Library · Map · Data sources · Assumptions · Limitations · Changelog · Mission scenarios · Assessments · Evidence · Providers · Generate Resilience Signature