Internal · capabilities section redesign

“How Modulos Solves It” — 7 candidate redesigns

The current alternating screenshot-and-text rows feel dated. Below are seven candidate replacements — codex's top 5 plus the user-requested bento, plus codex's missing traceability-map idea. All use the same sample data (Risk pillar capabilities + real product screenshots) so you can compare like-for-like. Pick one to ship.

Codex diagnosis

“The real defect isn't the zig-zag layout. It's that each capability is presented as an isolated brochure tile. For Modulos, the persuasive thing is the system: how evidence supports controls, controls satisfy frameworks, risks connect to mitigations, agents assist but humans approve, outputs become audit-ready.”

01

V1 · #7 Tabs + multi-pane workspace

Codex pick #1 · best balance

Vertical tab strip + a dense workspace pane per capability (chart + supporting table + framework chips). Feels like the product itself. Supports 5–7 capabilities without scroll-fatigue.

LCP: Risky if hydrated above the fold. Mitigation: render initial pane server-side; lazy hydrate.

EUR / CHF / USD output from risk matrices to Monte Carlo

Quantify Risk in Monetary Terms

Express AI risk exposure in monetary terms. Choose the method that matches your maturity — from risk matrices and scenario analysis to Monte Carlo simulation with VaR/CVaR output.

Top quantified risks · by € impact
BiasHallucinDriftLeakageVendor
Data
Method
Monte Carlo · 10,000 runs
VaR 95%
€82,170
CVaR 95%
€118,400
Confidence
σ = 12% of mean
FrameworksEU AI Act Art. 9ISO 42001 6.1.3NIST MEASURE-2.2
02

V2 · #4 Spec-sheet / data sheet

Codex pick #2 · most underused; safest

Bloomberg terminal vibe. Capability × Output × Method × Frameworks as a tight table with expand-on-click rows. Maximum text density, SEO-friendly.

LCP: Safest of all variants — no images, no charts, no client JS beyond row expansion.

Code
Capability
Output
Method
Frameworks
5 capabilities · Risk pillar
modulos.ai/platform/risk
03

V3 · #5 Interactive demo strip

Codex pick #3 · use selectively

Three live mini-widgets: Monte Carlo iteration slider, risk appetite slider, framework toggle. Visitor manipulates the platform in place. "Show, don't tell" taken literally.

LCP: Client JS required for interactivity. Mitigation: place below the fold; tree-shake.

QNTQuantify · Monte Carlo

Quantify Risk in € · live

Drag the slider to see how Monte Carlo iterations sharpen the VaR/CVaR estimate.

90K
VaR 95%
128K
CVaR 95%
1,000
Iterations
10010,000
APTAppetite & limits

Risk Appetite · live

Drag to set the limit. Current exposure is €48K; overages auto-flag.

Limit75K
Utilization64% · €48K of €75K
✓ Within appetite
MAPFramework mapping

One control, many frameworks · live

Click a framework to see which controls satisfy it.

Controls satisfying EU AI Act Art. 9
  • Risk Assessment Process
  • Bias & Fairness Testing
  • HITL Override
04

V4 · #9 Annotated screenshot zooms

Codex pick #4 · makes screenshots earn their pixels

One large risk dashboard screenshot with clickable hotspots; each click highlights a region with a description card. Reuses real product screenshots.

LCP: Image is the LCP candidate. Mitigation: pre-optimized WebP picture, priority + fetchPriority.

Risk dashboard showing quantified risks, status by category, and framework mapping
QNT · 1 of 4

Top quantified risks

Each risk scored in monetary terms. Bar height = € impact. Click for the full distribution and method.

€573.71K total · 5 categories

All hotspots
05

V5 · #1 Sticky-scroll storytelling

Codex pick #5 · premium narrative

Left column scrolls through capabilities; right column is sticky and morphs as you scroll past each section. Documentary, not brochure.

LCP: Highest LCP risk. Mitigation: render first section server-side; observer-driven swap.

01 · QNT

Quantify Risk in Monetary Terms

Express AI risk exposure in monetary terms. Choose the method that matches your maturity — from risk matrices and scenario analysis to Monte Carlo simulation with VaR/CVaR output.

4 quantification methods
02 · VAL

Risk Value Over Time

Track how risk exposure evolves at project and organization level. See current value, 7-day change, and utilization against your risk limits — with trend lines, moving averages, and threshold alerts.

7-day change tracked
03 · APT

Risk Appetite & Limits

Define organization-wide risk tolerance. Set category limits. Automatically flag when projects exceed their allocated risk budget.

Automatic overage alerts
04 · THR

Risk & Threat Vector Tracking

Track risk and threat vectors to your AI system and quantify their impact. Each vector links to its mitigating controls and supporting evidence.

14+ frameworks linked
05 · TAX

Organization Risk Taxonomy

Define your own risk categories and scoring criteria. Once set, risks become comparable across all AI projects in your portfolio.

Portfolio-wide comparability
Top quantified risks
BiasHallucinDriftLeakageVendorInject
VaR 95%: €82.17K
Risk value · trailing 14 days
limit
−€34K in 14 days · within limit
Appetite utilization
95%
Technical
OVER LIMIT
64%
Ethical
Watch
48%
Legal
OK
22%
Operational
OK
Threat vector constellation
RiskInjectBiasHallucLeakDrift
Org-defined taxonomy
Technical
BiasDriftHallucination
Ethical
FairnessTransparency
Operational
VendorLogging
Legal
PrivacyLiability
06

V6 · #3 Asymmetric bento grid

User added · safe fallback

One large hero card + four smaller mosaic cards, each with a real micro-visual (bars, sparkline, ring, constellation, taxonomy tree). Apple iPhone / Linear / Notion AI aesthetic.

LCP: Server-renderable; all charts are inline SVG. Safe.

QNTRisk · capability 01

Quantify Risk in Monetary Terms

Express AI risk exposure in monetary terms. Choose the method that matches your maturity — from risk matrices and scenario analysis to Monte Carlo simulation with VaR/CVaR output.

Top risks · €
BiasHalluDriftLeakVendor
Method
Risk matrix
Scenario analysis
Monte Carlo · VaR/CVaR
Matrix mapping
VaR 95%€82.17K
EU AI Act Art. 9ISO 42001 6.1.3NIST MEASURE-2.2
VALcapability 02

Risk Value Over Time

Trend lines, moving averages, threshold alerts

−€34K · 14dtrend ↓
64%
APTcapability 03

Risk Appetite & Limits

Org-wide tolerance with automatic overage flags

1 overage · Technical at 95%
THR04

Risk & Threat Vector Tracking

RiskInjectBiasHallucLeak
24 vectors · 47 controls · 186 evidence
TAX05

Organization Risk Taxonomy

Technical (3)
Ethical (2)
Legal (2)
Operational (2)
+ 3 more · 38 sub-categories
07

V7 · #11 Traceability map (codex's missing idea)

Codex added · most differentiated

One dense visual showing the platform as a connected workflow: frameworks → requirements → controls ↔ risks ↔ evidence ← agents → audit exports. Hover/click traces the full chain. Distinctively Modulos — addresses the core diagnosis that the current section presents capabilities as isolated brochure tiles.

LCP: Server-renderable SVG + lazy interactivity.

The operating graph

Every capability connects.

Frameworks generate requirements. Requirements are satisfied by reusable controls. Controls consume evidence and mitigate risks. Agents author evidence; humans approve. Everything rolls up to audit-ready exports. Hover or click any node to trace its full chain.

Frameworks
Requirements
Controls
Evidence
Risks
Agents
Audit Exports
Hover or click any node to trace its full chain across frameworks, controls, evidence, risks, agents, and exports.