Mirsad
Institutional Image Management
From early detection to an effective response
Institutional reputation is decided in the hours before a report is written and put in front of a decision-maker. Mirsad gives the communications department those hours back: it follows the Arabic conversation about the institution, notifies the responsible officer the moment something shifts, hands them the evidence, the context and the wording to respond with, then measures the response and shows how well it worked. What follows is what actually changes when the platform is in use.
What you get
An issue that begins as a passing complaint does not look alarming in its first hours. Mirsad watches it develop continuously and notifies a named officer the moment it crosses into something that warrants attention — before the query arrives from leadership, and with enough time to act rather than apologise late.
News, social platforms, forums and official channels arrive in a single Arabic interface, organised into connected narratives by subject. The morning scan takes minutes instead of an hour, and following the conversation no longer depends on which member of staff happens to know which platform or app to watch.
Mirsad ranks issues by how far they have spread, how sharp they are, how fast they are climbing and how sensitive the subject is. The department spends its time and its people on the issue most likely to reach a decision-maker's desk tomorrow, not on whatever was loudest overnight.
Every issue that calls for action becomes a documented case with a clear reference number that can be said out loud, a named owner, a deadline, and a complete record that cannot be altered without leaving a trace.
When the team is asked six months later what happened and when the decision was taken, the answer is on one screen — not spread across chats, files and the memory of five people.
When the response draft opens, the essentials are already in place: when the issue began, how far it spread, what is being claimed, and which posts and sources it rests on.
Staff start from a sourced, editable draft rather than from nothing. A second officer then reviews and approves it, and a single consistent version can be issued for the institutional file.
After the response is published, Mirsad compares the conversation before and after and gives a clear verdict on the outcome: recovered, improving, unchanged, worse, or not enough data to judge.
That candour is what makes good results provable and defensible in leadership and budget meetings, and it lets the department learn from the responses that did not land.
Why institutions choose Mirsad
The analysis is built on the language people in the Kingdom actually write — Gulf and Hijazi usage, local dialect, sarcasm, and the indirect ways a complaint gets made — not on a model lifted wholesale from an English tool.
So a citizen's complaint about a service is recognised as a complaint, not as a neutral mention of the institution's name.
The platform runs on the institution's own infrastructure. Data is not sent to external services for analysis and does not pass through a foreign cloud. It stays where the institution's regulations and policies require it to stay, and the hosting location is shown plainly inside the platform.
Every number or result on the screen can be traced back to the posts and sources it came from. Views, decisions and actions are recorded in a documented audit trail that cannot be altered without leaving a visible trace.
When a regulator or internal audit asks, the answer comes from the system directly, not from memory or personal estimates.
Where coverage is partial, the platform says so beside the figure. Where a result is an estimate, it is plainly marked as an estimate.
A platform worth trusting does not hide its limits or its blind spots, and does not give an institution false confidence in an incomplete picture.
Mirsad provides roles and permissions that match real job functions, approval paths that reflect real levels of responsibility, and notifications that reach the on-call officer's phone when they are needed — at two in the morning if that is when it matters — alongside a requirement for review and approval before anything is issued in the institution's name.
What we will never do
The posting account is recorded only to the extent needed for the institution to review or reply to the content, and it is not used beyond that purpose.
The platform does not link accounts across different platforms, does not attempt to uncover who is behind a pseudonymous account, and does not infer traits or personal characteristics about any individual.
The platform collects only publicly published content, and only within each platform's own rules and terms. It does not enter private accounts, does not bypass any protection, and does not automatically collect content whose publisher has asked not to be read by machine.
The platform watches, notifies and suggests. It does not report accounts, does not reply on the institution's behalf, and takes no automatic action against anyone.
Every response issued in the institution's name is written, reviewed and approved by a person.
When the platform detects indicators that activity may be organised, it presents them as indicators that require verification, and sets out the caveats that go with them.
It does not attribute intent to individuals and does not assert a link between accounts without sufficient evidence.
The terms you will see on screen
- Trust index
- A score from 0 to 100 expressing the character of the conversation about the institution over a given period, where 50 is neutral. It is always shown alongside the volume of conversation and the data it rests on.
- Narrative
- A group of posts that address the same subject, gathered into a single story on screen instead of appearing as hundreds of separate rows.
- Exposure
- A measure of how far a story has travelled, based on the size of the audience, the intensity of engagement, and the range of channels that carried it.
- Risk
- A score from 0 to 100 for a specific story, expressing how much attention it warrants today, based on exposure, intensity, speed of escalation, and the sensitivity of the subject.
- Stage
- Where the story currently stands: emerging, accelerating, at its peak, receding, or dormant.
- Coordination
- An indication that there are signs the activity may be organised rather than spontaneous. It is a signal that calls for investigation, not a final judgement.
- Case
- An issue the institution has decided to act on, with a reference number, a named owner, a deadline, and a complete record of actions and decisions.
- Verdict
- The outcome the platform records after a response: recovered, improving, unchanged, worse, or inconclusive when there is not enough data to judge.
Every figure on the screen comes with its relevant caveats and its basis, so that it is not used in a meeting or a report without knowing what it rests on. The full account of how the platform works, and the evidence behind it, is presented to an institution during evaluation.
The purpose of the platform
Mirsad exists to let institutions understand the public conversation around them, detect consequential issues early, manage the institutional response efficiently, and measure its effect clearly — within a framework that protects privacy, guarantees accountability, and keeps the final decision in human hands.