Axiomancer
Documentation — Methodology

Chokepoint transits

Analyze vessel movement through four maritime chokepoints with AIS evidence, and understand the non-confirming Sentinel-1 catalog boundary.

Axiom Overwatch uses AIS positions and corridor geometry to analyze vessel movement through four maritime chokepoints: Bab-el-Mandeb, the Strait of Hormuz, the southern Suez approaches, and Cape Agulhas.

The supported confirmation posture is AIS-only. Overwatch can also query the Copernicus Sentinel-1 catalog to learn whether radar imagery may exist near a place and time, but a catalog result does not identify a vessel, process image pixels, or confirm a transit.

Do not treat SAR catalog coverage as evidence that a vessel crossed a corridor. Pixel detection and AIS-to-SAR confirmation are not part of the supported production workflow.

When to use this

Use chokepoint analysis to:

  • Review AIS-observed approaches and passages through a named corridor.
  • Compare a vessel's projected route with later AIS positions.
  • Investigate stale or missing AIS while keeping the evidentiary gap explicit.
  • Check whether Sentinel-1 products may exist for an independent imagery workflow.

For vessel-level routing without corridor semantics, use Route forecasts. For catalog availability near one location and time, use the SAR coverage API.

Current operating boundary

CapabilityCurrent documentation contract
AIS position and route evidenceSupported. Use observed positions and route forecasts to reason about a vessel's movement.
Chokepoint corridor geometrySupported for the four configured corridors on this page.
AIS-based transit conclusionSupported when the conclusion is backed by AIS evidence.
Sentinel-1 catalog lookupSupported through the authenticated SAR coverage endpoint. It reports product availability and timing metadata.
Radar pixel detectionNot a supported production capability.
Automatic AIS-to-SAR vessel matchNot a supported production capability.
SAR-confirmed or SAR-only dark transitDo not claim from the current product surface.
Rendering diagram…
The supported path ends with AIS evidence. A Sentinel-1 catalog lookup can inform a separate imagery investigation, but it does not enter the confirmation path.

The chokepoints

Corridor keyNameAnalytical boundary
bab-el-mandebBab-el-Mandeb / Red Sea SouthStrait between Yemen and Djibouti, connecting the Gulf of Aden and Red Sea.
hormuzStrait of Hormuz / Northern GulfPassage between the Persian Gulf and Gulf of Oman.
suez-sSouthern Suez approaches / Red Sea NorthSouthern approach to the canal; surface analysis does not imply coverage inside the land-locked canal.
cape-agulhasCape Agulhas / Southern AfricaAtlantic–Indian Ocean rounding corridor used for detour analysis.

Each corridor has an analysis polygon plus approach and exit geometry. A projected path can indicate that a vessel is likely to enter a corridor; later AIS positions provide the evidence for whether the vessel was observed continuing through it.

AIS analysis workflow

Start with recent AIS

Confirm that the vessel has a recent position, course, and speed. A stale, stationary, or heading-less position cannot support a reliable forward projection.

Project the route

Use the vessel's latest AIS state and route forecast to evaluate whether its path intersects a configured chokepoint.

Watch for observed positions

Compare the projected approach with later AIS positions in or beyond the corridor. Keep the projection and observation timestamps separate.

State the evidence

Describe an observed transit only when AIS supports it. If the vessel stops reporting, record an AIS gap rather than upgrading the gap to a radar-confirmed or dark transit.

Using Sentinel-1 catalog coverage

The SAR coverage endpoint accepts a location, time, and radius, then queries the Copernicus catalog for matching Sentinel-1 products. Its response can answer questions such as:

  • Did the catalog return a product near this place and time?
  • When was the closest cataloged pass?
  • Is the product listed as online?
  • How strong is the timing-and-coverage potential for a separate investigation?

It cannot answer:

  • Which vessel appears in an image.
  • Whether any ship-like pixel exists.
  • Whether a cataloged product was downloaded or processed.
  • Whether an AIS gap is a sanctions-evasion event.
  • Whether a vessel completed a chokepoint transit.

The repository contains readiness-oriented SAR code and data structures, including a default-disabled monitor and an unavailable detector scaffold. Their presence is not launch evidence. Re-verify feature configuration, processing, and reviewed precision evidence before documenting any future SAR confirmation capability.

Interpret missing AIS carefully

An AIS gap is an absence of expected position reports, not proof of concealment. Weather, terrestrial receiver coverage, equipment state, congestion, and operational behavior can all affect reporting.

When the evidence is incomplete:

  1. Preserve the last observed AIS position and timestamp.
  2. Keep route projections labeled as projections.
  3. Use other Overwatch signals as corroborating context, not as a substitute observation.
  4. Treat catalog coverage as a pointer for independent imagery analysis.
  5. Avoid assigning a vessel identity to radar imagery without a separately validated detection and matching workflow.

Continue with AIS coverage, Route forecasts, and the SAR coverage API.

Was this page helpful?

On this page