Fact
Confirmed by a document or a registry.
“According to the registry, the company was registered in 2019; its director is person A.”
Updated
About / MethodologyBLACKFILE methodology: how we verify information and reach conclusions
Every material conclusion in our report can be checked: it has a source, a date, a level of confidence and honestly stated limitations.
The method is the same for checking a person, a company, assets and sources of information.
- 3
- levels of conclusion: fact, assessment, hypothesis
- 0
- material findings without a source and a date
- 1
- uncorroborated source is not a basis for a finding
02 / Principle
A verifiable conclusion instead of a pile of data
Clients make decisions about money, deals and people based on our reports. So we do not hand over everything we found, but answers to the questions of the task - with their basis.
Finding information today is easy. The hard part is knowing which of it to trust, how it connects and what follows from it. That is what the method is for.
A conclusion without a source is an opinion. We deliver conclusions that can be checked.
03 / Six steps
Six steps from question to finding
The steps are the same for any task. Sources, countries and depth change.
- 01/Question
Question
We turn the task into questions that facts can answer. Each question is tied to the decision you have to make.
Questions in the work plan - 02/Sources
Sources
We choose sources for the question and the country: registries, courts, corporate data, publications, digital footprints, lawful fieldwork. We take into account the legal limits of each jurisdiction.
Source map - 03/Verify
Confirmation
We corroborate material information with an independent source. A single uncorroborated source does not become the basis for a finding. We examine discrepancies separately rather than smoothing them over.
Verified facts - 04/Links
Connections and chronology
We connect the facts: who is linked to whom, in what order events happened, where versions diverge. If the task needs it, we build a link map, a chronology or an asset register.
The full picture - 05/Confidence
Alternatives and confidence
For each key finding we test other explanations of the same facts. What remains is the conclusion that withstands the test, and our level of confidence in it.
A finding with a level of confidence - 06/Review
Control
Key findings go through a second review, and the project lead reviews the final report. We report material findings immediately, without waiting for the report.
Material for a decision
04 / Source and information
We assess the source and the information separately
A reliable source can be wrong. Information from a random source can be confirmed by a document. That is why every material piece of information gets two assessments: who reports it and what corroborates it.
Source reliability
Who reports the information
- ProvenState registry, court, primary document
- Usually reliableBusiness media, industry databases, official company websites
- Cannot be judgedAnonymous channels, forums, a new source with no track record
Corroboration of the information
What corroborates the information
- ConfirmedMatches across independent sources
- ProbableConsistent with the facts, but only partly corroborated
- Not confirmedA single source or a contradiction is not a basis for a finding
How it looks in practice
Registry entry on the company directorProvenConfirmedFact
A publication about a dispute between partnersUsually reliableProbable - we are looking for court recordsAssessment pending corroboration
A message in an anonymous channelCannot be judgedNot confirmedA hypothesis to verify, not a finding
Assessing the source and the information separately is the basis of the Admiralty scale, which intelligence services have used since the Second World War. We apply the same principle in every project.
05 / Levels of findings
Fact, assessment and hypothesis are never mixed in the report
You always see what has been established, what we assess and what remains a version. And how confident we are.
Assessment
An analytical conclusion with a stated level of confidence.
“With high confidence: the company and the supplier are connected through a shared director.”
Hypothesis
A version that still needs to be verified.
“Hypothesis: payments are routed through a related structure. Bank statements are needed to verify this.”
Level of confidence
High
Several independent sources, no contradictions.
Medium
The sources are reliable, but corroboration is partial or there are gaps.
Low
There is little data or it is contradictory. This is a pointer for the next step, not a basis for a decision.
Guilt, fraud and nominee status are established by a court. That is why, where it matters, we write “indicators” and “observed connection”.
06 / Sources
Lawful sources only
We choose methods for the task and the country. There is one boundary - the law.
We use
- State and corporate registries
- Court databases and judgments
- Publications and media archives
- Open digital footprints
- Documents you provide
- Interviews and lawful fieldwork
We do not use
- Unauthorised access to accounts, email and databases
- Unlawful surveillance
- Obtaining information protected by law
- Pressuring people to obtain information
Question / Sources / Verify / Links / Confidence / Finding
Every piece of information - with a source and a date
That is why our conclusions can be re-checked. This is what separates analysis from opinion.
- 6
- method steps
- 3
- levels of findings
- 2
- assessments for every piece of information
07 / Questions
Questions about the method
A service shows data from databases. We answer the questions of the task: we compare sources, check discrepancies, reconstruct connections and state how confident we are in each conclusion. A service extract is one of our sources, not the result.
Registries, court databases, corporate data, publications, open digital footprints, client documents and lawful fieldwork. The mix depends on the question and the country.
Yes. Every material piece of information comes with its source and date. A conclusion without a basis does not make it into the report.
The sources are reliable, but corroboration is partial or there are gaps. We state what is missing and how to obtain it.
We record the discrepancy and examine it separately. If the contradiction cannot be resolved, we say so - together with the versions and their basis.
No. We do not access accounts or closed databases by circumventing the law, and we do not use information protected by law. Lawful sources only.
Before the work starts we check the legal limits on information gathering in every country of the project and choose methods within those limits.
Yes. We report material findings immediately, without waiting for the final report.
If the review is needed for a dispute, we will reflect the required format in the plan. Whether the material is admissible in a particular court is assessed by a lawyer in that country.