Open-source intelligence (OSINT) has never been more plentiful, yet decision-makers are no better protected than they were a decade ago. The weakness lies in the distance between raw data and verified intelligence. That distance matters most when you have to commit aircraft or capital to a volatile region.

Operators and underwriters meet the gap from different sides of the same risk. An operator planning a route through contested airspace needs to know whether a reported threat is real and when it is likely to materialise. An underwriter writing or renewing cover on that operation needs to know how much weight the same report deserves before it shapes price and capacity.

This article sets out where OSINT earns its place, where it breaks down, and how verified intelligence supports decisions you can stand behind, whichever side of the risk you sit on.

Where OSINT earns its place

Open sources deserve a place in every geopolitical risk assessment. Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) data tracks aircraft movements continuously, while satellite imagery captures changes in activity at military sites. Monitoring of Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) interference picks up jamming and spoofing, which often precedes military operations.

Governments rely on these methods too. A 2022 study by the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) and the Alan Turing Institute found that publicly available information now makes up the majority of the material behind actionable national security insight for UK decision-makers. The useful question is where that value runs out.

Four blind spots that distort risk decisions

Relying on open sources alone creates predictable blind spots, because the weaknesses are inherent to the method itself. Each one can push an operational or underwriting decision in the wrong direction.

Circular reporting creates false corroboration

During a high-profile escalation, one original report can spread across dozens of outlets. Ten articles describing the same threat look like ten confirmations; if all ten trace back to a single origin, you hold one data point. The intelligence failure over Iraqi weapons of mass destruction remains the most consequential historical example of circular reporting.

The cost lands on both sides. An operator may cancel or reroute flights on the strength of a single unverified source, and an underwriter may load a premium or withdraw capacity on the same basis.

State actors manipulate open channels

States can deliberately seed public channels with misleading material. Some inflate threat signals to provoke disruption, while others suppress indicators so that an area looks safer than it is. Open-source methods offer no dependable way to tell authentic signals from those engineered to deceive, so any route plan or price built on them inherits the distortion.

The streetlight effect skews coverage

Analysis gathers around the data that is easiest to reach, which is rarely where risk is highest. This bias is known as the streetlight effect. Conflict zones with weak digital infrastructure, or with state-controlled media, produce the thinnest open-source coverage, and those same locations carry the most severe consequences. In practice, the least evidence is often available exactly where a wrong routing call or a mispriced risk would cost the most.

Official advisories lag the threat

State-issued notices share the same structural weakness. The Dutch Safety Board found that states involved in armed conflict rarely close their own airspace proactively, even when sufficient grounds exist.

The downing of flight MH17 over eastern Ukraine on 17 July 2014 shows what that lag can cost. Between 14 and 17 July, 61 operators from 32 countries routed flights through the same airspace, and 160 flights crossed it on the day of the crash before it closed. Many judged that airspace to be safe, yet it held risks the available data did not reveal. If your view of a territory rests on official advisories, your flight plans and your portfolio carry the same lag.

How verified intelligence supports operators and underwriters

Routing decisions and underwriting decisions both depend on knowing how much weight each signal deserves. At Osprey, every data point passes four checks before it informs a forecast or triggers an alert.

Is the signal independently corroborated?

We monitor more than 200,000 sources in 60 languages and cross-check each signal against independent sources before treating it as verified. When 40 outlets repeat a report from one origin, we record a single data point.

Does it mark a genuine change from baseline?

Machine learning models flag departures from normal patterns, such as unusual military movements, changes in Automatic Identification System (AIS) transponder behaviour, communications blackouts, and shifts in light intensity around known areas of tension. Indicators like these rarely surface in news coverage.

What does a fall in activity mean?

A sharp drop in activity around a specific location is a signal in its own right. We monitor for areas that go dark.

How likely is the event, and when?

Every Osprey forecast carries a probability assessment and an analyst-reviewed timeframe, in place of a binary safe or unsafe judgement. In the first half of 2025, 43 percent of Osprey notifications were proactive, with a 98 percent accuracy rating.

A probability and a timeframe give you lead time to act before an event. Operators can make a route change as a planned decision instead of a reactive cancellation; underwriters can review terms at renewal or monitor a risk they have already written.

An evidence-led standard for risk decisions

Aviation already sets a clear benchmark. International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Doc 10084 expects operators to conduct their own independent risk assessments instead of deferring to state-issued advisories. That principle calls for verified, confidence-rated intelligence with enough lead time to make changes as planned decisions.

The same evidence can serve both sides of the risk. When an operator can trace a routing decision back to its evidence and timeframe, that record also gives the underwriter covering the operation a clearer basis for pricing and terms.

The 2026 geopolitical crisis in the Middle East made the point. The operators best positioned to respond were those with access to stronger analysis, regardless of how much raw data they held.

Questions to ask before you rely on risk intelligence

Whether you are planning a route or writing a risk, test your intelligence against these questions:

• How many independent origins sit behind each reported threat?

• Can your provider show the evidence behind every assessment?

• Does each forecast state a probability and a timeframe?

• Does the intelligence identify where risk is low as well as where it is high?

• Is the analysis tied to the routes and locations you are exposed to, or only to country level?

If any answer is unclear, treat that intelligence as a lead to investigate before it shapes a decision.

Frequently asked questions

What is OSINT in geopolitical risk analysis?

OSINT is intelligence drawn from publicly available information. In geopolitical risk analysis, examples include ADS-B aircraft tracking, satellite imagery of military sites, GNSS interference monitoring, and AIS transponder data.

What are the main limitations of OSINT?

The four structural limitations are circular reporting, deliberate manipulation by state actors, the streetlight effect, and the lag in state-issued advisories.

What is circular reporting?

Circular reporting occurs when a single source is repeated across many outlets, creating the appearance of corroboration where none exists. At Osprey, a story carried by many outlets from one origin counts as a single data point.

How does verified intelligence help operators and underwriters?

Verified intelligence checks each signal for independent corroboration and for a genuine change from baseline, then attaches a probability assessment and an analyst-reviewed timeframe. Operators can use that to plan route changes ahead of an event, and underwriters can use it to inform pricing and portfolio monitoring.

Speak to our team about how verified intelligence can support your operational and underwriting decisions. Book a call

Sources

• Dutch Safety Board, Final Report: Crash MH17, 17 July 2014. October 2015.
• RUSI and the Alan Turing Institute, The Future of Open-Source Intelligence for UK National Security. June 2022.
• ICAO Doc 10084, Conflict Zone Risk Assessment. International Civil Aviation Organization.
• Osprey Forecasts Information Sheet, Osprey Risk Solutions.