Assess what was built. Measure what it reduced.
Evidence-based Zero Trust efficacy assessment across the network and identity pillars, measuring whether Zero Trust investment actually reduced risk.
Zero Trust Maturity Assessment
Most Zero Trust assessments grade a roadmap. Pueo grades the result. This is an efficacy assessment of what was built, not a review of the build plan, focused on the network and identity pillars where the first waves of Zero Trust investment concentrate.
The method starts from the claim: what was this investment supposed to reduce? Pueo then tests the deployed controls against that claim. Segmentation and policy enforcement points are checked where the design says traffic is controlled. Authentication, authorization, privileged access, and device posture are checked as conditions of access rather than as licensed features. Evidence comes from running configuration and authorized testing, not from vendor dashboards or self-reported status, and maturity is scored against the federal Zero Trust maturity model with the evidence attached.
Pueo is not grading its own homework. The assessment is independent of the build, gaps are written as mission risk with the engineering change that closes them, and the result is a defensible answer for a leader who has to report what the Zero Trust spend actually bought.
What’s Inside
Network pillar assessment
Segmentation, macro and micro boundaries, and policy enforcement points, tested to confirm traffic policy is applied where the architecture says it is.
Identity pillar assessment
Authentication strength, authorization decisions, privileged access paths, and conditional access tied to device and session posture.
Efficacy and investment lens
Each Zero Trust investment mapped to the risk it was funded to reduce, then reported on whether the deployed result reduced it.
Evidence-based maturity scoring
Scoring against the federal Zero Trust maturity model, anchored to observed configuration and test evidence rather than intent or roadmap position.
Gap-to-buy-down plan
Every gap written as mission risk, with the engineering change, the owner, and the sequence that closes it.
Outcomes
- A defensible answer to whether Zero Trust investment reduced risk.
- Maturity scores anchored to evidence a reviewer can check.
- Enforcement confirmed where the architecture claims it, and gaps named where it is not.
- Gaps expressed as mission risk with an engineering path to close them.
- An independent read on the architecture from a team that did not build it.
Where this connects.
Speak with an Expert
The hardest networks are the ones Pueo was built for. Tell us what you have to protect.
Contact