§ 01 · The report suite
Three reports, each in two forms
The dashboard is the interactive portal — sortable registers, hover maps, drill-down detail. The full report is the complete written deliverable: every section of the production template, formatted for adoption, board packets, and print. Start with Report 1 if this is your first visit — the risk classes it establishes are the direct inputs to everything that follows.
Report 1
Community Risk Assessment
NFPA 1300 · NFPA 1750 §10.3.6
What the community's risk actually is — ten planning zones scored on the PRISM probability × impact model.
- 10 zones · 1 High, 6 Moderate, 3 Low
- Seven mandatory NFPA 1300 risk profiles
- Demographics, SVI, building stock, target hazards
- Five ranked CRR priorities, each with an owner
- Full report: 21 sections · 50 pages · v2.1
Report 2
Standards of Cover
NFPA 1750 · NFPA 1225 · CFAI
What response that risk is owed — the adopted objectives and effective response force, sized to Report 1's risk classes.
- Station-based objectives + demand-zone totals
- ERF by hazard class, from critical-task analysis
- Achievability modeled honestly, gaps stated
- Adoption resolution & measurement conventions
- Full report: 9 sections + 3 appendices · 17 pages · v1.1
Report 3
Service Delivery Scorecard
CPSE/CFAI · 90th percentile
Whether it was delivered — every adopted objective measured against real incident data, quarterly and annually.
- 13 adopted measures: objective · measured · gap · n
- True 90th percentile, never averages
- Concurrency and overlap-penalty analysis
- Gap & excess register with adoption triggers
- Annual edition: CY 2025 · 15 pages · v1.1
▸ Dashboard vs. full report — what's different
The dashboards are the working tool: they refresh quarterly and let a chief interrogate the data. The PDFs are the governance artifact: Report 2's PDF carries the adoption instrument and the questions governing bodies ask; Report 3's annual edition adds two things the dashboard does not carry — the gap & excess register and recommendations with adoption-trigger status. Both render from the same hashed data artifact, so the numbers reconcile exactly.
§ 02 · How the chain works
Each report answers one question
Report 1 · CRA
What is the risk?
→
Report 2 · SOC
What response is it owed?
→
Report 3 · SDS
Was it delivered?
▸ Why it matters
Most departments produce these three documents separately, years apart, from different vendors, with numbers that don't reconcile. PRISM renders them from one versioned dataset, so a risk class set in Report 1 is the same risk class measured in Report 3 — and any gap between the standard and the delivery is visible, quarterly, in public.
§ 03 · What the chain found
The verdict, in public
This is what the loop produces at the end of a year: thirteen adopted measures, each judged against its own zone and risk class. Five met, eight not met. Full detail and the gap register are in the Report 3 annual edition.
Objectives met
5 of 13
incl. all urban + rural totals
Objectives not met
8 of 13
led by daytime ERF
Responses measured
2,410
CY 2025 · 41 excluded, published
Gaps identified
8
G1–G8 · full register
Excess identified
6
E1–E6 · where capacity is idle
Selected measures — CY 2025
Each response judged against its own zone / risk-class objective, then aggregated at the true 90th percentile
| Measure | Objective | Measured 90th | % meeting | Verdict |
|---|
| Alarm handling (call answer → dispatch) | 1:04 | 0:58 | 93% | Met |
| Total response — urban zones | 9:00 | 8:12 | 91% | Met |
| Total response — rural zones | 14:00 | 13:25 | 84% | Met |
| Travel — ALS arrival | 8:00 | 7:10 | 91% | Met |
| Travel — first engine | 4:00 | 5:55 | 58% | Not met |
| Turnout — fire | 1:20 | 1:52 | 68% | Not met |
| ERF assembly — Moderate (28) | 10:24 | 12:10 | 24% | Not met |
| Cardiac-arrest force (6) | 10:24 | 11:15 | 61% | Not met |
▸ The one-line verdict
Fairview keeps its end-to-end promise where most people live — urban and rural demand-zone totals met, alarm handling and ALS met — but cannot yet field the force the risk demands when it matters most: Moderate ERF assembles on 24% of qualifying incidents (14% by day). The fix is timing, not headcount: the system that assembles ~34 overnight assembles ~21 by day.
§ 04 · The demo community
Fairview Fire & EMS at a glance
Fairview is a fictional 5-station combination system built to exercise the full method end to end. Every figure in every report is synthetic.
| Measure | Value | Detail |
|---|
| Population protected | 34,800 | 28.4 mi² · 19.2% over 65 |
| Planning zones | 10 | 4 urban · 4 suburban · 2 rural |
| Composite PRISM risk | R 7.5 | Moderate · one High zone (Z-06 Riverbend) |
| Annual incidents | 2,410 | 60% EMS · +2.8%/yr |
| Personnel | 38 / 82 | career / active operational volunteers |
| On-duty career strength | 7 | 24/7 · Stations 1–2 |
| Call concurrency | 23% | calls beginning while units committed |
| Structures beyond hydrant distance | 18% | 2,240 structures · tanker-shuttle operation |
⚠ Demo notice
Fairview is not a real community. All data is synthetic and generated to illustrate the PRISM method — nothing here should be cited as an operational finding for any department.