Methodology
Every engagement follows the same method. It is designed to produce a result that holds up in front of a client, counsel, an investment committee or a court.
We use five steps because the work needs them. We do not force a matter into a shorter shape to look tidy.
We agree the decision the work must support and the scope boundary. A narrow, answerable question produces a defensible result. An open brief does not.
We secure the repositories, accounts, records and systems the review depends on before anything changes. Where evidence is at risk, preservation comes first.
We examine the evidence against the claim being made. We separate what the records show from what has been asserted.
We classify each finding by materiality and by the strength of the evidence, using a fixed confidence scale so the reader can weigh each point.
We set out the practical step, the owner and the timing where possible, so the finding leads to a decision rather than a discussion.
Each finding carries a confidence level in both text and colour, so no conclusion rests on certainty it does not have.
Findings follow one structure across the report and the briefing. The example below is illustrative and composite, not a real matter.
Research and comparison may be assisted by software. A named human expert reviews and accepts responsibility for every published technical conclusion.
If you have a decision, transaction or dispute that turns on a technical question, outline it and we will review the scope.
