Why days, not weeks
Traditional due diligence and investigations take weeks because people read records one at a time: registry by registry, court by court, language by language. Our proprietary AI-assisted research system does that gathering and cross-checking at machine speed, so our analysts spend their time on judgement rather than on searching. Many single-company checks are delivered within 24 hours; standard due diligence reports take two to three days; complex, multi-jurisdiction matters take days rather than the usual weeks. Turnaround depends on the matter, and we give you an estimate before we start.
Four stages
- Retrieval. We gather records from company and beneficial-ownership registers, court and insolvency records, official gazettes, procurement data, sanctions and regulatory lists, archived web pages and reporting by established media, in many languages. Each record is archived and hashed when we read it.
- Analysis. Names, transliterations, former names and corporate layers are resolved into people, companies and the links between them. A link is only drawn where a record draws it, and an analyst checks every one.
- Evaluation. Each finding is graded by how well it is established, against at least one primary record where one exists. Dates of events are kept apart from dates of publication, brands apart from the legal entities behind them, and the innocent explanations are tested before anything is called a red flag.
- Synthesis. The findings are written up for the purpose you gave us: a recommendation, the key findings with their sources, and the uncertainties that remain.
People in charge
The system proposes; analysts decide. An analyst scopes every matter, reviews what the system retrieves, checks every connection and every adverse finding against its source, and signs off the report. No finding reaches a client or a published dossier on the strength of a model's output alone, and we never present generated text as a source.
Certainty
Every claim in a dossier, and every finding in a report, carries its kind:
- documented: shown by the cited record;
- attributed: someone else's account, not adopted by us;
- analysis: our reading of the cited records;
- unresolved: an account the records neither confirm nor rule out;
- refuted: an account the records contradict.
A connection between two parties never transfers an allegation from one to the other.
Uncertainty, stated
Every report ends with what we could not establish: records that were unavailable, registers that do not publish owners, claims we could neither confirm nor rule out, and our confidence in each conclusion. A recommendation is only as good as its gaps are visible, so we name them rather than fill them.
Every side heard
In our public dossiers we listen to all sides and engage constructively with the companies, authorities and people we write about. Where a finding is adverse, we show their response next to it, and any later outcome.
Data handling
Briefs and client material are encrypted on arrival and read only by the analysts on the matter. Client material is never used to train third-party AI models, and the model providers we use process data under confidentiality terms that forbid training on it. We do not use stolen material, and we do not obtain information by deception. Our privacy notice explains how we handle personal data.
Corrections
When we change a published dossier in a way that matters to readers, a dated note appears on the dossier itself.
Limits
Our dossiers and reports describe what the records show on a stated date. They are not legal, financial or investment advice, credit ratings or a guarantee that nothing else exists. Decisions remain yours, and our recommendations are written to inform them, not to replace them.