The question
What decision, dispute, claim or uncertainty was actually investigated?
Case studies
See the methodology applied to real evidence.
Inspect two real public-source evidence-assurance records: Sasol for financial-statement reliance and MH370 for high-uncertainty technical investigation.
Latest public portfolio case · Financial evidence assurance
Sasol Limited Financial-Statement Reality Assessment
A public-source investigation testing whether Sasol Limited’s reported financial position, performance and cash generation are suitable for responsible reliance, while separating a clean financial-statement audit opinion from ineffective internal-control findings and assumption-sensitive estimates.
Reliance result: Suitable for Conditional Reliance. Specialist Review Required for high-consequence impairment, deferred-tax, environmental-provision, valuation and audit-control conclusions.
Publication status: Public Edition · Right of Reply Pending. Independent financial-specialist review and any legal review required for high-reliance use are not represented as completed.
What the Sasol case demonstrates
- financial-statement and regulatory-source control
- internal-control chronology and material-weakness analysis
- cash-conversion and working-capital review
- impairment, provision and deferred-tax sensitivity
- competing hypotheses and counter-evidence
- conditional reliance and specialist escalation
- right-of-reply and publication controls
Published portfolio case
Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370
A high-uncertainty public-source investigation used to show how Aperture separates evidence from narrative, tests competing explanations, records contradictions and gaps, and defines what can responsibly be relied upon.
Research state: v0.6 research closure, evidence cut-off 7 August 2026. Independent specialist review remains pending.
What is included
- principal investigative dossier and annexes
- claims-and-evidence matrix
- master chronology and source registers
- evidence-gap and specialist-review register
- executive decision and research-closing records
- machine-readable research controls
- reader guides in eight languages
What a public case study should make clear
The evidence
What material evidence was available, unavailable, contradictory or dependent on another source?
The reliance result
What could be concluded, what could not be concluded and what evidence could change the assessment?
Independent public-source work is labelled precisely.
A public-source case study does not imply that Aperture represented a party, received a client instruction or had access to confidential evidence unless the publication expressly says so.
The evidence cut-off, material limitations, actual approval status and relevant professional boundaries must remain visible.
Illustrative examples remain available separately.
They show the structure of evidence-assurance work without being presented as real public case studies.
View Selected Work and ExamplesClient outcome
What this means for you
Aperture helps turn scattered, disputed or uncertain information into a clearer record of what can and cannot responsibly support your decision.
See what is established
Separate verified facts and supported findings from claims, repetition, inference and assumption.
See what could change the answer
Keep contradictions, missing evidence, alternative explanations and specialist dependencies visible before reliance.
Know the responsible next step
Understand what the evidence supports now, what it does not support and whether further work is proportionate.