Questions first. Evidence next. Judgment throughout.

Define the verification questions.

What claim, relationship, exposure or risk actually needs to be tested? We identify the decision in view, material assumptions and the consequences of relying on them.

The mandate sets the scope, relevant jurisdictions, timetable, lawful access boundaries, authorized contacts and reporting requirements. Work that is not feasible is not quietly presented as covered.

Map the parties.

Identify relevant companies, people, ownership relationships, intermediaries and payment beneficiaries. Distinguish the contractual chain from the supply, document and money flows.

Recorded relationships, client assertions and investigative hypotheses remain separate. A shared name, address or director can be an indicator without establishing control or common purpose.

Verify independently.

Use lawful public records, client-provided documents, institutional sources and other legally accessible investigative sources. The source used must be capable of answering the question being asked.

Independence is not achieved by checking one counterparty-supplied document against another. Where authorized and appropriate, confirmations use contact channels established separately from the claim under review.

Cross-analyze.

Compare people, companies, documents, chronology, public records, commercial claims, relationships and the proposed transaction structure. Test alternative explanations rather than selecting only facts that fit the initial narrative.

An inconsistency may be a mistake, a historic change, a limitation of the source or something material to the decision. The analysis identifies why it matters and what would be needed to resolve it.

Report for decision.

Separate findings, corroborated facts, inconsistencies, unverified claims, limitations, verification gaps and recommended next steps. The executive assessment explains the relevance to the client’s question.

Reporting can include source references, a parties and relationship map, document chronology and jurisdiction-specific caveats. Preservation and evidentiary requirements should be agreed with counsel when material is intended for proceedings.

• Verified — independently supported for the stated fact and date.
• Partially corroborated — some elements supported; material aspects remain open.
• Inconsistent — evidence or documents conflict in a way that requires explanation.
• Not independently verified — the available work did not establish the claim.
• No supporting evidence identified — no support found within the sources and scope examined.
• Requires additional confirmation — a specific question needs further evidence.
• Material verification gap — an unresolved point affects a material assumption.