Establish the broad record
Reconstruct the flight, surveillance loss, radar phase, satellite signalling, debris recovery and search history from traceable source families.
Published evidence-assurance case
Aperture evidence assurance applied to a global, high-uncertainty public-source investigation.
MH370 is used here as a practical demonstration of what Aperture does when a decision record contains official findings, technical models, physical evidence, incomplete primary records, competing explanations, public speculation and material unanswered questions.
International access: concise reader guides are available in English, Bahasa Melayu, Simplified Chinese, French, Spanish, German, Arabic and Japanese.
International access
Eight concise reader guides provide an accessible introduction to the MH370 evidence-assurance case before the complete English controlled dossier is opened. The English controlled dossier remains the governing edition. Independent specialist linguistic review is not represented as completed.
Why this example matters
A client does not need thousands of pages of material simply repeated back to them. The problem is to identify which propositions are established, which depend on models or assumptions, which claims recycle the same source, which contradictions survive testing, which evidence remains unavailable and what level of reliance is responsible.
The MH370 record makes those controls visible. It shows how Aperture separates the broad reconstruction from unresolved questions about initiating cause, controller identity, intent, motive and exact wreckage location.
The decision question
Reconstruct the flight, surveillance loss, radar phase, satellite signalling, debris recovery and search history from traceable source families.
Test technical interpretation, source dependence, public claim mutation and competing causal explanations rather than rewarding repetition or confidence.
Separate high-confidence broad findings from model-dependent propositions, unresolved causal questions and evidence that only future recovery or specialist work can resolve.
Decision-grade result in the supplied record
The supplied dossier supports normal initial departure, later loss of normal secondary-surveillance identification, westward diversion and continued multi-hour flight.
The supplied research classifies the southern route and ultimate loss in the southern Indian Ocean as very strongly supported, reinforced by confirmed physical debris.
Restoration of SDU power after a material interruption is strongly supported. The historical cause of the interruption remains indeterminate.
Fuel exhaustion followed by APU-supplied electrical restoration is the best-supported public explanation in the supplied record, subject to Boeing 777 systems specialist review.
The final measurements are treated as strongly consistent with a substantial and rapidly changing descent component, but not as direct proof of one exact descent rate, attitude or control state.
The supplied record does not establish initiating cause, controller identity, intent, motive or exact wreckage coordinate. Competing broad causal families remain unresolved.
These statements summarise the supplied v0.6 research-closure record. They are not presented as an official accident-investigation finding or as independently validated specialist conclusions.
Contradiction testing
The record rejects treating final BFO values as a direct recorder of one exact vertical descent rate.
The technical power interruption/restoration proposition is separated from the unresolved historical cause.
The v0.6 addendum records 221 kg of lithium-ion batteries within a broader 2,453 kg Motorola consignment and treats the common formulation as materially misleading.
The official forensic material is treated as relevant circumstantial evidence, not proof of one exact rehearsal of the later route.
The dossier distinguishes higher-confidence sonar coverage from lower-confidence and data-gap areas rather than treating all searched seabed as uniform 100% exclusion.
The alternative controlled-descent model is retained as a serious challenge without being allowed to displace the wider record merely because it is novel or confident.
Research readiness
The supplied v0.6 readiness report records a score of 89 / 100 and classifies the matter as Ready Subject to Independent Specialist Review. General desk research is closed under a diminishing-value test for the evidence cut-off.
The score does not override material deficiencies. The record still identifies missing primary evidence, specialist reproducibility work, current-search quality-control data, right of reply and external review as limitations on external reliance.
What this solves for a client
Aperture converts documents, claims, data and commentary into a controlled evidence architecture rather than a larger pile of reading.
Competing explanations are kept visible, source dependence is separated from genuine corroboration and technical questions are escalated instead of guessed.
The output distinguishes established facts, supported inferences, model-dependent findings, unresolved questions and the evidence that could change the answer.
Your matter does not need to be as large as MH370. The same controls can be scaled to a counterparty, transaction, disputed claim, chronology, publication, technical question or strategic decision.
Professional boundary
The supplied dossier expressly states that it is not an official accident investigation, legal opinion, engineering certification, accredited forensic examination or substitute for the Malaysian Annex 13 investigation. It does not claim access to non-public evidence.
The source PDFs are published here unchanged. Their original control language remains visible, including the fact that independent specialist validation, institutional right of reply and other release-assurance gates were incomplete when the research package was closed.
Website publication does not convert those unresolved gates into completed specialist validation.
How to read the case
Full supplied dossier
The supplied case materials are available here. Start with the Executive Research Closing Record for the fastest overview, or open the complete combined pack for the full controlled record. The combined editions are web-optimised for reliable browser access while preserving their pagination and substantive content.
Explains the v0.6 research-closure package, status and relationship to the v0.5 controlled base record.
Open file →Records an 89/100 research-readiness score and classifies the record as ready subject to independent specialist review.
Open file →Updates propositions on SATCOM, end-of-flight interpretation, radar, simulator evidence, cargo claims, debris and search limitations.
Open file →Ranks unresolved evidence gaps and identifies the technical questions that require independent specialist review.
Open file →Lists the principal official, technical, scientific and adversarial sources used for the v0.6 proposition update.
Open file →States the research-closing assessment, remaining limits and next control gate.
Open file →Combined v0.6 package containing the research-closure documents and controlled base record.
Open file →Controlled base record
The v0.6 material preserves the author-approved v0.5 base record and supersedes it only where the v0.6 documents explicitly change or qualify a proposition.
Structured evidence controls
These files make the underlying control architecture inspectable: calculations, changes, chronology, propositions, contradictions, gaps, sources, findings and right-of-reply status. They are downloadable as supplied and are not rewritten by the website.
How to use the example
If your decision depends on incomplete records, conflicting accounts, technical interpretation, repeated claims, uncertain provenance, source recycling or important unknowns, the MH370 package shows the kind of control Aperture can apply.
Choose the route that matches your situation. WhatsApp is suitable for a first contact or urgent communication. Formal instructions, evidence and sensitive documents remain by email for traceability and appropriate handling.
First contactIntroduce yourself and briefly explain what decision, claim, transaction, dispute or uncertainty must be examined. Include the country, intended use and any real deadline.Urgent communicationUse this for an existing matter requiring time-sensitive attention. Include the matter reference, what changed, the response needed, and the exact deadline with time zone.Email: info@apertureforensic.comDo not send confidential evidence, identity documents or large files in the first WhatsApp message. We will confirm the appropriate email or document-transfer route.