A focused review can test material representations, counterparties and public evidence before capital or contractual exposure increases.
Example decision logic: a US$5,000–US$10,000 due-diligence engagement may be proportionate where the transaction or counterparty exposure is materially larger.The business case
Spend proportionately before uncertainty becomes expensive.
If you are deciding whether deeper evidence work is worth the cost, start with the commercial consequence of getting the underlying facts wrong.
Why clients pay for evidence assurance
The objective is not more research. It is a better basis for the decision.
A Claims & Evidence Audit can test whether important conclusions are actually supported, independently sourced and fairly stated.
Indicative fee: US$3,000–US$7,500.A bounded evidence review may resolve the key uncertainty, narrow the problem, or show that specialist or field investigation is justified.
Start with the smallest responsible scope rather than buying breadth automatically.The Aperture niche
Professional evidence work between screening and full-scale investigation.
Aperture is not a substitute for legal advice, audit, forensic accounting, surveillance, field investigation or human-source intelligence. It is a focused, remote-first evidence-assurance practice for defined decisions, evidence problems and bounded sets of related questions.
Focused scope
Work is bounded around what the decision actually requires.
Faster mobilisation
Remote-first research and structured digital workflows can reduce operational delay where the matter is suitable.
Lower initial commitment
Clients can test the evidence before automatically commissioning a broader and more expensive investigation.
Proof already available
Inspect the work before you commission us.
Sasol
Financial-statement evidence, cash generation, control-risk disclosures, estimates, competing explanations and reliance limits.
View the Sasol case study →MH370
High-uncertainty evidence reconstruction, source verification, chronology, contradictions, competing explanations and technical uncertainty.
View the MH370 case study →These are independent public-source case studies, not client engagements. No client relationship or endorsement is implied.
Start with the decision. Scope the evidence around it.
You do not always need the biggest investigation. You need the right level of evidence for the decision in front of you.
Commercial proof layer
A portfolio case built around a recognisable buyer problem.
Tingo Mobile · Counterparty reliance before acquisition
The controlled Tingo case asks what material counterparty risks, inconsistencies, evidence gaps and reliance concerns were reasonably identifiable from public sources immediately before a high-value acquisition closed.
It demonstrates a commercially familiar use of Aperture: test the public evidentiary basis of a counterparty decision, identify what can be established, and specify what independent verification is still required before further commitment.
See the Tingo Capability SummaryNot a client claim
The Tingo work is an independent public-source portfolio case, not a commissioned engagement. The underlying controlled research edition remains subject to publication controls and is not publicly distributed.