Magnitude, epicentre, depth, and shaking actually experienced at a location.
Authoritative sources exist and publish continuously. Adapter not built.
The located event and its size.
Acceleration recorded at an instrument.
Modelled intensity at a place from the located event.
Someone recorded that a thing happened. An observation, not a reading.
An instrument read a value at a place and a time.
An analyst or a model produced this from other data. It is a product, not a sensor.
Covers an area, not a point. There is no nearest station, and we will not invent one.
Measured at a fixed station. The record discloses which one and how far it is from you.
An authoritative body's analytical product. Its uncertainty is the source's own.
Published by an authoritative operator of the instrument.
Magnitude is a property of the event; shaking is a property of your address. Parametric triggers are written against the second and argued using the first, which is exactly where the money is.
Not named here yet. Candidate sources for this lane exist and are identified internally, but they have not been verified against the primary documentation — and an unverified source attribution on a public page is the exact mistake this company exists to avoid. They appear here when they have been checked, not before.
Structural damage attributed to an event. Induced seismicity near injection wells. A parametric policy triggering on ground motion at the insured site rather than at the epicentre.
That framing is our analysis of where disputes arise, not a claim of fact about any matter.
We are not capturing this lane today, so there is nothing here to sell you and we are not going to pretend otherwise. What we do want is to know what you would actually ask it. Requests decide what gets built next — that is not a courtesy, it is how the order is set.