See what is established
Separate verified facts and supported findings from claims, repetition, inference and assumption.
Professional output
Evidence-Gap Register
A structured record of the information that is missing, inaccessible, contradictory or insufficient for a stronger conclusion.
This is a possible evidence-assurance output. The product is selected according to the decision, evidence, limitations and required level of responsible reliance.
See the work
See what a complete research product looks like.
Review Selected Work and clearly labelled illustrative examples to see how evidence, limitations and responsible reliance can be structured in a professional output.
What it is
Research developed for a defined use.
A structured record of the information that is missing, inaccessible, contradictory or insufficient for a stronger conclusion.
The exact form is agreed only after the central questions, intended users, jurisdiction, evidence burden, deadline and available material have been assessed.
Client value
It makes uncertainty operational by showing what still needs to be obtained, why it matters and how the gap affects the decision.
Real output example
This exact output type appears in the MH370 public-source case package.
Open the MH370 Evidence Gaps & Specialist QuestionsWhen it is useful
The problem this output helps solve
This output is useful when a client needs research converted into a form that can be reviewed, circulated, challenged or used in a serious decision. It is particularly valuable where raw search results, generated text or unsupported assertions are not sufficient.
How it differs
Designed for its own role
The register cannot compel access to unavailable records and does not imply that every gap can be resolved.
What the work may examine
Typical research components
- missing primary records
- unverified assumptions or identities
- incomplete datasets and denominator problems
- conflicting dates, definitions or versions
- specialist testing or direct confirmation still required
What you may receive
Concrete deliverables
- Evidence-Gap Register
- Materiality Assessment
- Impact on Findings
- Recommended Verification Action
- Responsibility and Priority Fields where agreed
How the research is handled
Human-directed work with controlled verification.
Paul Hattingh and the Aperture research team define the questions, select and assess sources, test material claims, examine contradictions, record limitations and approve the final client-facing work. Technology may assist with organisation, comparison and drafting support, but it does not replace evidence assessment or professional judgement.
Core controls
- Material claims require an identifiable evidence basis.
- Source repetition is not treated as independent corroboration.
- Contradictory evidence and uncertainty remain visible.
- Conclusions cannot exceed the scope and quality of the evidence.
Professional boundaries
Useful within clearly stated limits.
The register cannot compel access to unavailable records and does not imply that every gap can be resolved.
The output does not automatically constitute legal, financial, medical, engineering, accounting or other regulated advice. Where specialist examination, certification or direct verification is required, that requirement is identified rather than simulated.
Scope and pricing
The fee reflects the work behind the document.
Pricing depends on the number of questions, entities, claims, documents, jurisdictions, time periods, source-access costs, urgency, specialist dependencies and intended use. An estimate may be provided during scoping; the project fee is fixed when the agreed scope and deliverables are ready to commence.
Client outcome
What this gives you
The output is designed to help you act on evidence, not merely read more information. Findings remain connected to sources, limitations and reliance conditions.
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.
Tell us what you need the research to do.
Paul and Xandro will help determine whether this is the appropriate output or whether another format would better serve your questions and intended use.
Prepare an Initial Enquiry