Skip to content
For the COO

Security that protects care delivery — not one that interrupts it.

Valentra Labs runs the cybersecurity program as an operating layer that keeps care delivery continuous, so the COO sees security as operational resilience on Valentra Nexus, with a board-ready Decision Packet — not as the next source of downtime.

Design partners

Valentra Labs is shaping Valentra Nexus with a founding cohort of design partners. Here is where that program stands today.

Enrolling Design partners onboarding now

Updated

The mandate a COO owns

A COO is measured on operational continuity, and a security incident — or a clumsy security control — stops care from being delivered. Security work bolted on without regard for operations becomes the disruption it was meant to prevent.

Valentra Labs operates security as part of how the organization runs. Valentra Nexus carries the assets, risks, controls, and evidence that keep care delivery resilient, and the work to close gaps is sequenced against operations — so the COO reports continuity backed by a board-ready Decision Packet, not a tradeoff between safety and uptime.

What COOs say in our discovery calls

Drawn from how COOs describe the problem in their own words — anonymized to role and organization type.

  • Every control someone adds without talking to operations becomes my outage. I need security that plans around care delivery. — COO, multi-site provider
  • When a system goes down, patients wait. Continuity is the number I answer for, and security has to protect it, not threaten it. — COO, regional health system
  • I run the day-to-day across every site. I need one operating record for security, not a different story at each location. — COO, PE-backed platform

What the COO reports to the board

The program produces one artifact the COO can stand behind: a board-ready Decision Packet carrying the situation, options, recommendation, evidence, and approval chain — generated by Valentra Nexus.

Decision Packet · v1.0

Q2 2026 — Crown-Jewel Risk Disposition

pkt_2026-04-17_a3f8e1

Situation

Q2 program review covers the crown-jewel ePHI store and its supporting control envelope. 487 endpoints catalogued across three network segments; 12 unsanctioned SaaS surfaces detected by the shadow-IT scan. Continuous monitoring posture is operating; the residual question is risk acceptance for two compensating-control gaps surfaced this cycle.

Risk & Impact

14 critical findings scored against the revenue-at-risk model. Two compensating gaps (vendor-SOC-2 attestation lapse + patch-cycle #38 awaiting CAB sign-off) carry residual risk of $1.4M in unmitigated regulatory exposure if a HITRUST audit lands before remediation closes. Patient-data confidentiality remains the load-bearing impact dimension.

Options

  1. Accept residual risk through Q3, with quarterly board re-review.
  2. Accelerate remediation by re-prioritizing the patch cycle ahead of the planned Q3 platform migration (cost: 2 engineer-weeks).
  3. Transfer risk via expanded cyber-insurance rider (cost: $48K/yr premium delta; coverage gap on ePHI exfiltration remains).

Recommendation

Pursue Option 2 — accelerate remediation. The 2 engineer-weeks of effort cost is recoverable in Q3; the residual exposure is asymmetric (regulatory floor of $1.4M vs. ~$120K labor delta). Document the patch-cycle re-prioritization as a logged decision with the program owner; close the SOC-2 attestation gap via vendor outreach in the same window. Insurance rider deferred to Q4 review.

Evidence

Twelve evidence artifacts back the recommendation — asset inventory, control mapping, vendor SOC-2 status, residual-risk model, patch-cycle telemetry, and the prior packet's audit trail. One control attestation is overridden with a documented compensating-control narrative; two vendor attestations are pending the Q2 refresh window.
ArtifactHashStatusDetailCaptured
Asset inventory snapshot — 487 endpoints#a3f8e1b2verified
Control mapping cross-walk — 93 controls#b7c4d9e0verified
Vendor SOC-2 attestation — current#c9d0e2f1pendingRefresh window opens 2026-05-12; vendor confirmed window…
Vendor SOC-2 attestation — secondary processor#d2e3f4a5pending
Residual-risk model — revenue-at-risk#e1f2a3b4verified
Patch cycle #38 — CAB queue position#f3a4b5c6overridden
Overridden per compensating-control narrative — see attached
Penetration test report — Q1 follow-up#a5b6c7d8stale
Prior packet audit trail — pkt_2026-01-09_b8c4e2#b6c7d8e9verified

Approval Chain

CIO and CISO have signed. The CCO signature is pending receipt of the vendor-SOC-2 refresh; the program owner has logged the override and the compensating-control narrative.
  1. Chief Information OfficerM. AlvarezSigned 2026-04-17T14:08:11Z
  2. Chief Information Security OfficerJ. ParkSigned 2026-04-17T14:18:42Z
  3. Chief Compliance OfficerPending signatureAwaiting vendor SOC-2 refresh — window opens 2026-05-12
Generated by Valentra Nexuspkt_2026-04-17_a3f8e1

Operator history

The credibility behind Valentra Labs is a track record, stated plainly and dated — not a marketing claim.

  • Clearwater ARR (Jon Moore)

    ~$4M → $47M+

    as of Clearwater operator history

  • Industry recognition

    Best in KLAS

    as of KLAS Research

  • IRM|Pro origin (Jonathan Kaeuper)

    SME & advisor on IRM|Pro

    as of Clearwater operator history

Aligned to the frameworks you report against

The program maps each operating stage — asset, risk, control, evidence, work, decision — to the frameworks healthcare cybersecurity teams report against. Valentra Nexus carries the full framework-alignment grid; see how the stages line up on the platform page.

Valentra Labs gives the COO security as operational resilience, not downtime: it operates the cybersecurity program on Valentra Nexus and sequences the work against care delivery, reporting a board-ready Decision Packet — so continuity holds while controls, evidence, and risk stay current.

as of