1. Authoritative
Official registries, regulators, document issuers, sanctions databases, maritime registries, trade data.
The DDNC Evidence Framework
We distinguish what is represented from what the evidence actually supports.
How We Investigate
Scope and Verifiable Questions
Every engagement starts by defining what is being investigated, the parties involved, the relevant jurisdictions, and the decisions the investigation needs to support. Scope is set by the nature of the transaction, the value exposed, the sector, the countries involved, the quality of documentation available, and any risks already flagged, so resources go where they're materially relevant.
From there, the investigation is built around verifiable questions, not a generic checklist:
- 01
Do the parties involved exist and are they properly constituted?
- 02
Do the individuals involved actually have authority to represent the organisation?
- 03
Does the declared activity match its real operational footprint?
- 04
Are the product, origin and quantity commercially plausible?
- 05
Do the documents genuinely come from the entities that appear to have issued them?
- 06
Does the banking procedure match the transaction being presented?
- 07
Does the logistics structure actually support the stated timelines, volumes and locations?
- 08
Are there undisclosed relationships, sanctions, litigation or history that matter?
These questions are adapted case by case, not applied identically to every file.
Source Hierarchy
2. Representation
Anything supplied by a party to the transaction, treated as a claim until independently confirmed, never accepted as fact on its own.
3. Supporting
News, commercial sources, aggregated databases, open information, weighed by origin, date and reliability, used to corroborate, never to establish.
Entity Normalisation
Trading names, legal names, registration numbers, addresses, directors, shareholders, representatives, websites, contact details and bank accounts are normalised before anything gets cross-referenced. This step is what catches entities with near-identical names being confused with each other, and surfaces identity changes, related companies, shared addresses, ownership structures and undisclosed links that wouldn't show up in a single reading.
Transaction Mapping
We represent the transaction as a system of relationships and dependencies.
- 01Buyer
- 02Seller
- 03Intermediary
- 04Producer / Supplier
- 05Bank & Financial Instrument
- 06Paying Entity / Beneficiary
- 07Inspector / Laboratory / Certifier
- 08Terminal / Warehouse / Port / Carrier
- 09Documents & Obligations
This map is what lets us check whether every party involved has a role that actually makes sense, and whether the commercial, financial and logistics sequence holds together.
Multidimensional Cross-Referencing
Every material piece of information is compared across dimensions: between documents, between documents and external records, across dates, locations, volumes and capacities, across what different parties have stated, against what the company's real profile supports it doing, and against normal sector practice for the procedure proposed. The goal is to surface convergence, contradiction, gaps, and anything with no independent support.
The Iterative Cycle
An inconsistency is never converted straight into a conclusion, it becomes a new question. We go back to the sources, look for alternative explanations, request additional evidence, and test whether the divergence comes from an administrative error, outdated information, a jurisdictional difference, an imprecise representation, or possible manipulation. This cycle continues until the question is resolved, classified as a limitation, or confirmed as a material Red Flag.
Sector Knowledge, Applied
Experience is what turns data into judgement, evaluating whether a quantity, timeline, terminal, certificate, banking procedure or intermediation chain is commercially and operationally plausible. Something can look acceptable in isolation and still be incompatible with how the product or market actually works. Experience doesn't replace evidence, it's what shapes which questions get asked and which patterns get recognised.
Review and Traceability
Before a report is issued, key findings are reviewed for consistency between the evidence, the analysis, and the classification assigned. Sources, limitations, consultation dates and unverified elements are all logged, so the reasoning behind every conclusion can be understood, and revisited or audited later if needed.
A Decision-Oriented Result
The final report doesn't just present information. It sets out what has been confirmed, what remains a representation, where inconsistencies sit, what the material risks are, what further verification is needed, what would reduce exposure, and whether the indicated path is to proceed, to proceed with conditions, to pause, or to decline.
Experience directs where to look. Evidence determines what can be concluded.
Evidence scale
Evidence Scale
Evidence first · Representations clearly identified · Assessments grounded in evidence.
1. Confirmed Fact
Independently established through reliable evidence.
2. Documented Evidence
Supported by documentation available for analysis.
3. Representation by a Party
Stated by a transaction party, not independently established.
4. Professional Assessment
DDNC analysis based on evidence and context.
5. Unverified Information
Insufficient supporting evidence has been established.
Operating principles
International Transactions
Built around the realities of cross-border commercial execution.
Independent Analysis
Evidence is assessed independently of the representations made by the parties.
Decision Support
The purpose is not to collect information, but to support a defensible decision.
Confidential Work
Client, corporate, banking and transaction information is treated as confidential.
Red Flag logic
What a Red Flag looks like.
A Red Flag is not an allegation. It is a material issue requiring evidence, verification or action.
FactInconsistencyRiskEvidenceVerification RequiredRecommended Action