# Attack-Path Review Figures
Attack-Path Review Uplift
A path-qualified review adds evidence, sequencing, shared weaknesses, and remediation leverage to an ordinary finding set.
Comparison between a conventional finding set and an attack-path review with evidence-qualified paths, chokepoints, residual state, and retest criteria.
Path Validation Workflow
Candidate paths are challenged for evidence, ordering, consequence, and alternatives before they become reportable.
Governed attack-path review workflow from candidate path through evidence review, sequence review, consequence review, correction, analyst review, and report state.
- 1Ingest representative findingsAccept the agreed finding, trace, graph, or partner object with source references.
- 2Construct candidate pathsGroup related findings and relationships without assuming the chain is valid.
- 3Challenge evidenceConfirm each step, source, precondition, and relevant observation.
- 4Challenge orderingReview prerequisites, transition feasibility, and alternate sequences.
- 5Bound consequenceLimit impact to what the evidence and reachable actions support.
- 6Correct or rejectSplit, downgrade, revise, or reject unsupported paths.
- Grounded path
- Explicit inferred extension
- Rejected path
- Analyst-reviewed result
Chokepoint Remediation Plan
The review prioritizes controls that interrupt several qualified paths while preserving residual-risk visibility.
Several qualified attack paths converging on shared weaknesses, followed by selected controls, blocked paths, residual paths, owners, and retest criteria.