See how a named customer proof point should be evaluated: the before state, what changed, the customer-specific alert-volume reduction, the caveats, and the questions another security team should validate before expecting a similar result.
The useful lesson is not just the headline number. It is the path from fragmented signals to a result a buyer can inspect.
Current public copy describes disconnected tools, alert fatigue, and visibility gaps. The expanded asset keeps those claims qualitative unless a source owner approves exact baseline counts.
SenseOn consolidated security signals into a single investigation workflow across endpoint, network, cloud, and identity categories, without exposing private customer architecture.
The 97.5% alert-volume reduction is treated as a Kingspan-specific result with provenance and caveats, not as a broad SenseOn benchmark.
The PDF is structured for buyers who need evidence they can discuss internally, not a glossy success story.
Every customer claim is separated into current public source, final-copy rule, approval status, and caveat.
Use the checklist to test whether your alert sources, definitions, data scope, and governance model are comparable.
The asset calls out what should not be generalized from a single named deployment.
Read the before state, change made, customer-specific result, provenance table, caveats, and repeatability checklist.
Kingspan Proof-Led Case Study
Case Study
Book a methodology walkthrough and compare your alert sources, definitions, operating model, and governance gates before assuming any customer result is repeatable.
