Climate Risk Quantified. Legally Defensible.
We map the financial fault lines hiding inside climate data — flood return periods, wildfire proximity scores, heat-stress projections — and translate them into defensible risk reports that hold up in boardrooms and courtrooms alike.
All figures as of Q4 2025. Methodology documentation available upon request.
Questions a Skeptical General Counsel
Would Actually Ask
We've answered every objection in writing. Select any question to review the full methodology, supporting citations, and documentation.
The SEC's final climate disclosure rule under Regulation S-K Item 1502 requires registrants to disclose material physical and transition risks, their reasonably likely material impacts on financial condition, and the governance processes used to identify, assess, and manage those risks. Every Exposure deliverable is structured to address all four disclosure pillars in sequence.
Our reports are organized around the SEC's own definitional framework: we distinguish between acute physical risks (single-occurrence events — hurricanes, flood events, wildfire) and chronic physical risks (longer-term shifts — sea-level rise, average temperature change, precipitation pattern alteration). Each risk category receives a separate quantitative analysis section with clearly labeled data lineage.
Report Structure Mapped to SEC Disclosure Pillars
Risk Identification
Section 2 — Hazard Screening Matrix
Material Impact Assessment
Section 3 — Financial Exposure Quantification
Governance & Oversight
Section 5 — Risk Governance Framework
Scenario Analysis
Section 4 — IPCC SSP Scenario Modeling
Exposure's legal review process — conducted by external securities counsel retained by the client — has resulted in zero restatements or material omissions across 340+ completed assessments. We maintain a formal audit trail for every data point cited in a deliverable, accessible to issuer counsel within 48 hours of request.
SEC Release No. 33-11275
The Enhancement and Standardization of Climate-Related Disclosures for Investors, effective March 6, 2024.
S-K Item 1502(a)
Requires disclosure of material physical risks categorized as acute or chronic, with description of the nature, location, and severity of each identified risk.
TCFD Final Recommendations, 2017 (Updated 2021)
Framework adopted by Exposure as the baseline governance structure for all physical risk assessments.
Forward-looking physical risk quantification requires answering three questions in sequence: How likely is a given climate hazard to occur at a given location over a given time horizon? What assets or operations are exposed to that hazard? And what is the financial cost of that exposure? We answer each question in a separate, independently auditable stage.
Stage 1 — Hazard Probability Modeling. We source raw climate projections from CMIP6 ensemble outputs, downscaled to 1km resolution using bias-corrected spatial disaggregation (BCSD). We apply three IPCC Shared Socioeconomic Pathways: SSP1-2.6 (low emissions), SSP2-4.5 (intermediate), and SSP5-8.5 (high emissions). Return period analysis uses extreme value theory (GEV distribution) applied to 30-year historical baselines extended with projected anomaly overlays.
Stage 2 — Exposure Mapping. Asset locations are geocoded to parcel-level precision and overlaid against hazard probability rasters. We integrate FEMA FIRM flood zone data, USFS wildfire risk-to-communities scores, NOAA sea-level rise projections, and EPA heat island datasets. All overlays are versioned and dated; clients receive a full data provenance table.
Stage 3 — Financial Translation. Hazard probability × exposed asset value × damage function = expected annual loss (EAL). We use RMS and AIR catastrophe model damage functions where available; for novel hazard types, we apply peer-reviewed academic damage functions with explicit uncertainty bounds. All financial outputs include P50, P75, and P90 confidence intervals.
Analytical Pipeline
Hazard Probability
CMIP6 ensemble, 1km resolution, 3 SSP scenarios
Exposure Mapping
Parcel-level geocoding × FEMA/NOAA/USFS overlays
Damage Functions
RMS/AIR catastrophe models + peer-reviewed supplements
Financial Translation
Expected Annual Loss with P50/P75/P90 confidence bands
CMIP6 Data Portal, ESGF
Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 — primary climate projection source for all Exposure physical risk analyses.
IPCC AR6 WGI, Chapter 11
Weather and Climate Extreme Events in a Changing Climate — source for hazard frequency and intensity projections.
Wood et al. (2002), J. Hydrometeorology
Hydrologic implications of dynamical and statistical approaches to downscaling climate model outputs — methodological basis for BCSD.
Flood plain data is a jurisdictional patchwork. FEMA FIRM maps are the federal baseline, but 22 states operate their own floodplain management programs with definitions that diverge from federal standards. An additional 1,200+ municipalities have adopted local ordinances that impose higher standards — freeboard requirements, cumulative substantial improvement thresholds, and critical facility setbacks — that can materially alter a property's regulatory exposure status.
Exposure maintains a proprietary 50-state regulatory mapping layer, updated quarterly, that reconciles federal FIRM designations with state floodplain management program requirements and a curated database of local ordinance amendments for the 500 highest-risk coastal and riverine municipalities. Every flood risk assessment cross-references all three layers and flags any jurisdiction where local standards are more stringent than federal minimums.
Jurisdictional Variance Handling Protocol
For clients with multi-state portfolios, we produce a jurisdictional variance summary table as a standalone deliverable — often the first time their legal team has seen their regulatory exposure mapped in a single document. This table has been cited in three separate securities litigation matters as evidence of good-faith disclosure diligence.
ASFPM State Program Summary, 2024
Association of State Floodplain Managers — annual survey of state floodplain management program requirements and variances from NFIP minimum standards.
44 CFR Part 60
Criteria for Land Management and Use — federal minimum floodplain management standards against which state and local variances are measured.
See the full methodology in practice.
Download a redacted sample risk brief — 42 pages, real asset class, real data.
The litigation context imposes a different standard than the boardroom. Expert witnesses must defend methodology under cross-examination; opposing counsel will probe every assumption, every data source, every uncertainty estimate. We design our deliverables knowing they may be produced in discovery.
Every Exposure report includes a standalone methodology appendix written to the standard of a Daubert-compliant expert report: it identifies the expert(s) responsible for each analytical section, states the data sources and their vintage, describes the analytical methods applied, quantifies uncertainty, and discloses all material assumptions. This appendix is not boilerplate — it is drafted specifically for each engagement.
Litigation & Examination Track Record
We maintain an expert witness roster of three climate scientists and two financial economists, all with prior deposition or trial testimony experience, available to testify in support of Exposure deliverables under separate engagement. Client counsel is introduced to the responsible analyst at project kickoff — not after the subpoena arrives.
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (1993)
Standard for admissibility of expert scientific testimony; Exposure methodology appendices are drafted to satisfy this standard.
SEC Division of Examinations, 2024 Priorities
Climate-related disclosure accuracy identified as an examination priority; Exposure clients have undergone two examinations without adverse findings.
“Exposure's flood risk analysis for our Gulf Coast portfolio was the only third-party report our D&O insurer accepted without further inquiry. The data provenance appendix alone saved us six weeks of back-and-forth with underwriters.”
Jennifer Calloway
CFO, Meridian Coastal Properties — Houston, TX
42 Pages.
Real Data. Zero Redactions on Methodology.
The sample brief is a complete, production-grade risk assessment for a redacted 18-property coastal portfolio. Every section reflects our actual deliverable standard — not a marketing summary.
Work email and company name are used solely to route the download and, with consent, to send regulatory update notices. We do not sell contact data. Unsubscribe from any email in one click.