Map the systems Israel depends on, then stress-test how disruptions could change capital priorities, company relevance, and diligence questions.
Explore the appsEach app uses transparent, cited inputs and is designed to support further diligence—not replace it.
Explore Israel's external dependencies, supplier concentration, vulnerable systems, and priority investment areas for sovereign resilience.
Model six disruption scenarios across three severity levels and examine the resulting system pressure, response themes, and research priorities.
Compare Israeli public-market index lenses by constituent weight, sector concentration, strategic theme, overlap, and available Claw & Talon profile links.
Search and filter validated Israeli companies by sector, strategic theme, and research signals, then open the company-level profiles the other apps link into.
Cross-reference the Dependency Atlas capital priorities against the startup database to see which strategic priorities have identifiable companies and which remain coverage gaps.
Adjust the nine published weights behind the Dependency Atlas capital-priority scoring model and watch the queue re-rank against the official baseline.
Pick two to four database entries and compare entity kind, status, exposure, sector context, research signals, and source freshness side by side — with explicit warnings when entity kinds are mixed.
Select a sector, an Atlas exposure, and an entity type to assemble a tailored, cited diligence question set — every question drawn verbatim from the canonical Learn checklists, grouped by dimension.
The app layer is intentionally narrow. Claw & Talon does not use these tools to predict returns, rank companies for purchase, or imply that a specific investment is available. The purpose is to make strategic dependency research easier to inspect: which systems are exposed, which assumptions drive the ranking, which Israeli capabilities may matter, and which questions a serious reader should verify before acting.
The Dependency Atlas starts from cited public inputs and turns them into a transparent map of strategic exposure. The Scenario Simulator reuses that same data rather than introducing hidden forecasts. When a company appears in an app result, it is a research match based on sector fit, database tags, and visible relevance signals. It is not an endorsement, recommendation, customer claim, or diligence conclusion.
Readers should treat the apps as a way to move from broad thesis to better follow-up work. A useful session usually begins with an exposure category, continues through the related investment case, checks the relevant sector page, and ends with source review, customer verification, technical diligence, and legal or regulatory advice where appropriate.
This also explains why the Apps page is organized around focused research surfaces instead of a broad catalog of widgets. The Atlas is the source-of-truth surface for dependencies and citations. The Simulator is the applied surface for asking how those dependencies might behave under stress. The TASE explorer adds public-market context without becoming a trading terminal. Adding more tools only helps if they make the evidence chain clearer.
The apps are intentionally ad-disabled because they are not meant to distract from evidence review or push a reader toward a commercial action. Their value comes from transparent assumptions, visible limitations, and links back to the Learn section, sector pages, database guide, and cited Atlas inputs. When a result is useful, it should produce better questions: which source supports the claim, which buyer would care, what evidence is missing, and what would make the thesis wrong.
The tools do not estimate valuation, fund access, founder quality, customer references, procurement timing, export-control outcomes, or whether a company is currently raising capital. Those questions require direct diligence and, in some cases, legal, tax, regulatory, or technical advice. The apps stop before that point so the public site does not blur research support with transaction advice.
They also avoid ranking every company in the database as if all entries represent the same kind of opportunity. A public company, acquired asset, fund, defense prime, government-owned company, ecosystem reference, and private startup can all matter to a strategic thesis, but they need different evidence standards. The apps are designed to keep those distinctions visible while still helping readers find the next useful page.
The intended reader outcome is a clearer research path: identify the strategic exposure, inspect the cited assumptions, understand which sector is relevant, decide what evidence would confirm or weaken the case, and then use the database or contact page only when the question is specific enough to justify follow-up.
That narrower purpose is the quality bar for future apps as well: each one should expose assumptions, cite inputs, and improve reader judgment.
