Identity and career
Consistency of public information, stated roles, timeline and verifiable elements.
Pre-engagement checks and risk control
Due diligence: decide with a more complete view of risk.
Open-source checks for executives, investors, recruiters, lawyers and advisers before a sensitive commitment.
The scope is adjusted to the question, urgency and available material. The aim is to obtain a useful answer without widening the research unnecessarily or collecting information that has no bearing on the decision.
- Service
- Digital due diligence
- For whom
- Individuals, executives, organisations and their advisers
- Sources
- Open, lawful, dated and traceable material
- Output
- IIS / RISK · decision-ready report
Objective
Reduce blind spots before a consequential decision.
The mission reviews public facts relevant to a precise objective: identity, career history, appointments, connected companies, published litigation, reputation and material inconsistencies.
The analysis remains proportionate, respects the stated purpose and distinguishes confirmed information from signals requiring further verification.
When a point cannot be confirmed, it is identified as an uncertainty or a lead for further verification. This distinction protects the quality of the report and prevents a plausible interpretation from being mistaken for an established fact.
Mission scope
What the analysis can cover.
The following areas can be combined or narrowed depending on the case. Each retained element must contribute to the stated objective and be obtained through a lawful, traceable source.
Professional ecosystem
Companies, appointments, visible partners, assets and publicly documented relationships.
Reputation
Press, publications, controversies, responses and the context of adverse mentions.
Public legal risk
Published decisions or proceedings, sanctions and facts available from lawful sources.
Digital presence
Domains, profiles, public statements, inconsistencies and exposure that may affect the relationship.
Decision brief
Ranked risks, unknowns, points to confirm and questions to ask before commitment.
Typical decision questions
Examples of a focused review.
These are illustrative questions, not client cases. Each calls for a bounded scope, dated sources and a clear account of what remains uncertain.
Is the contracting entity the right one?
Connect the trading name, registration number, directors and contact details to the received document. A real company does not automatically validate the correspondent or a new payment instruction.
Are control relationships established?
Separate declared ownership, formal mandate, shared address and operational control. Source and date each link to show what is confirmed and what remains an allegation.
What must be clarified before signing or paying?
Rank contradictions by their effect on the decision, then assign the next check. For new bank details, an independent callback and dual control come before payment.
Deliverable
A balanced note for informed decisions, grounded in facts.
The report avoids automatic judgements: it contextualises information, identifies limitations and recommends reasonable follow-up checks.
The main findings are written in plain language, with dated sources, confidence levels and practical consequences. A short executive summary supports quick reading, while the detailed sections preserve the reasoning needed to review the conclusions.
ReportIIS / RISK
- Executive summary
- Verified public facts
- Inconsistencies and context
- Risk matrix
- Questions and recommended next steps
Working framework
What makes a request easier to assess.
Question
State the decision, concern or event behind the request. A precise question produces a more proportionate search than a broad request for “everything” about a person or organisation.
Reference points
Share the names, entities, URLs, dates, public references and known aliases that matter. This helps distinguish a relevant trace from a namesake, an old result or an unrelated account.
Limits
Specify recipients, timing, jurisdictions and any legal or human constraints. The scope can then be restricted to lawful, useful sources and sensitive material can be handled with the appropriate care.
Decision
Explain what the report must enable: verify, prioritise, brief a professional, prepare a discussion or decide whether to proceed. The expected use informs the depth and format of the deliverable.
Useful distinctions
Clarity about scope protects the decision.
Does a public trace prove identity or intent?
Not automatically. A public trace can be incomplete, outdated, copied, falsely attributed or associated with a namesake. Its value comes from the quality of its source, its date, its context and corroboration by independent elements.
What is outside the scope of a lawful mission?
Accessing private accounts, bypassing security controls, intercepting communications, acquiring unlawfully obtained data or using deception to obtain protected information are excluded. The analysis is confined to open, lawfully accessible sources and client-provided material.
What areas can this analysis cover?
Depending on the question and legitimate purpose, the scope may include: Identity and career, Professional ecosystem, Reputation, Public legal risk, Digital presence, Decision brief. Only areas that contribute to the stated decision are retained.
What will the final report contain?
The exact format is agreed during scoping. Available components include: Executive summary, Verified public facts, Inconsistencies and context, Risk matrix, Questions and recommended next steps. Findings remain linked to dated sources, confidence levels and explicit caveats.
Can advisers or internal teams use the report?
It is designed to support review with a concise brief, dated sources, confidence levels, caveats and next-step options. The recipient remains responsible for their own legal, technical, HR or communication decisions.
Related services
Explore the other ways to address your situation.
Confidential scoping
Describe the context in simple terms, without sending passwords, identity documents or unnecessarily sensitive material at the first stage.
Agree the claims that could change the decision
Identify the contracting entity, jurisdiction, transaction and material assertions. Record exact company numbers before linking officers, filings or public proceedings. Request documents when public records do not resolve a material gap.
What makes the output usable
The output should connect each discrepancy to the proposed decision, preserve procedural outcomes and distinguish confirmed findings from clarification requests. State what can proceed, under which conditions and what would trigger a new review.