Why CohēCiv Exists

Digital exposure is no longer an edge case. It is foundational to how individuals and institutions operate, compete, and endure. Yet most responses remain reactive – focused on compliance, incident response, or defensive posture after compromise.
CohēCiv exists to close the gap between how sophisticated actors understand risk and how most organizations prepare for it. We translate intelligence tradecraft into practical, behavior-centric approaches that reduce exploitable surface area before adversaries arrive.
Our work is not about perfect security. It is about realistic resilience – grounded in how people actually behave under pressure.

How We See the Digital Risk Landscape

Threat actors do not exploit technology alone. They exploit patterns of human behavior, institutional friction, and the seams between systems.
The most persistent vulnerabilities are rarely technical. They are operational: inconsistent practice, misaligned incentives, and the assumption that awareness automatically produces resilience.
We approach digital risk as a human problem with technical dimensions – not the reverse. That means focusing on decision architecture, cognitive load, and real-world constraints, rather than idealized policies that assume perfect compliance.
Organizations that endure do more than harden infrastructure. They build adaptive capacity into how people work, communicate, and make decisions when conditions are imperfect.

Background & Perspective

CohēCiv is informed by experience across intelligence operations, counterintelligence, and strategic advisory work in adversarial environments. This includes time inside government, supporting private-sector organizations navigating geopolitical risk, and working directly with individuals exposed to persistent targeting.
The methods we apply draw from operational security doctrine, behavioral science, and the tradecraft used to protect high-risk populations. We have seen what holds when adversaries are patient, well-resourced, and adaptive – and what fails when organizations rely on procedural theater instead of outcome-driven practice.
Our perspective is shaped by proximity to consequence. We have seen how digital exposure becomes a vector for coercion, compromise, and reputational collapse. That reality informs how we build frameworks, conduct assessments, and advise clients.