More data doesn't automatically make an assessment better — it depends on what the extra data is actually doing. A few different things get lumped under "more data," and they're not all the same kind of improvement. Coverage is the obvious one. No single public dataset covers everything a site assessment needs — flood risk,
Compressible ground and shrink-swell clay are two different ways the same clay can cause problems for a foundation — one's settlement under load, the other's volume change with moisture content. They're separate failure mechanisms, and until recently GeoScreen rated them from different evidence: shrink-swell from the bedrock beneath a site, compressible ground only from soft
Every GeoScreen report today is built much the same way: the moment someone orders one, the platform fires off live calls to around twenty different public data sources in parallel — Environment Agency flood mapping, BGS geology, Natural England's ecological designations, and so on — and assembles whatever comes back into a report, typically inside
Every rating GeoScreen produces comes from an explicit rule, not a guess. That's the whole idea the product's built on, so it's worth actually explaining what sits behind that claim rather than just stating it and moving on. Before a report reaches anyone, it goes through two checks. One is rule-based and checks the output
