Evidence you
can act on.

Trace records, test assumptions, and turn a defined research question into a documented conclusion.

A precision archive and inspection lens representing source verification.

A mandate starts
with a question.

Marketplace analytics describe the collateral and market. A separate analytics mandate investigates a defined question and delivers a reasoned conclusion under an agreed scope.

Scope agreed in writing. Turnaround stated at scope. The deliverable is a written analysis, every figure traced to its source, reproducible on request.

How a mandate becomes a decision

A defined question enters. A sourced, reproducible written conclusion leaves.

Scope the decision

We agree the question to be answered, the evidence available, the deliverable and the turnaround in writing.

Establish the record

Filings, registrations, primary records, on-chain flows, statements and term sheets are assembled into one account.

Test the evidence

Material figures are traced to source, reconciled where records overlap and tested against independent evidence.

State the decision

The written analysis separates fact, inference and limitation, then states the conclusion the evidence supports.

No dashboard score replaces judgement. The record, method and reasoning remain visible so the conclusion can be challenged and reproduced.

Evidence in practice

Six anonymised engagements show the same progression: a situation, a finding and the decision that followed.

Asset tracing

Situation: A family office needed to establish where assets moved after a counterparty default.
Finding: Full-lifetime reconciliation of on-chain flows showed funds swept within seconds of receipt to an exchange-controlled deposit address rather than to the stated treasury.
Decision: Proceed with recovery action; the counterparty's account of events did not hold.

Entity verification

Situation: A prospective partner presented as a multi-billion manager.
Finding: Regulatory filings put assets in the low nine figures, and the approach structure matched a known advance-fee pattern.
Decision: Decline and do not transact.

Reconciliation

Situation: Reported balances did not tie to primary records.
Finding: Line by line against source statements, a deposit booked at a round figure was short in the underlying record and the reported position was overstated.
Decision: Treat the discrepancy as material to the reliability of every other figure from the same source.

Model review

Situation: A projection compounded growth from a base the historical statements did not support.
Finding: Rebuilt from actuals, the terminal value did not survive.
Decision: Reject the valuation: the arithmetic was sound, but the first row was not.

Private markets

Situation: An allocation was offered at a headline valuation.
Finding: The cap table showed a preference stack placing common behind a return threshold the business had never approached.
Decision: Reprice the allocation: the offered price was not the economic price.

Credit terms

Situation: Two facilities were quoted within 40 basis points.
Finding: Decomposed to all-in cost, the cheaper coupon carried rolled fees that inverted the ranking.
Decision: Take the higher coupon and trade the fee.

Practice areas

Define the question. Agree the evidence and analysis needed to answer it.

Counterparty and Entity Diligence

Establishing what a counterparty is, against filings, registrations, ownership records and operating history.

Is this manager the size they represent?
Who controls this entity and what is its operating history?
Does this approach match a known fraud typology?

Asset and Transaction Forensics

Reconstructing where assets moved and what occurred, from primary records.

Where did these funds go after the default?
Does the counterparty's account survive the ledger?
Can this position be substantiated?

Financial Statements and Modelling

Balance sheet and income statement analysis, reconciliation to primary records, scenario and sensitivity modelling, projections tested against the assumptions they rest on.

Do these statements tie to source?
What does this projection assume, and does the history support it?
What breaks this model first?

Structure and Terms

All in cost and consequence of a proposed structure, across credit and equity.

What does this facility actually cost?
What does common receive behind the preference stack?
What is the treatment of this transfer?

Markets and Valuation

Clearing levels, exit at size, and defensible marks.

What does this clear at today?
What does it cost to exit this position?
What is this asset worth where the book is thin?

Define your mandate.