Financial evidence assurance
Sasol Limited
Examine the financial-statement reality assessment, reliance findings and the complete Sasol research archive.
Explore the Sasol CaseDownload Complete Sasol Master ArchiveSelected Work
See the evidence-assurance method applied to real evidence.
Inspect two real public-source examples: MH370 for high-uncertainty technical investigation, and Sasol for financial-statement reality assessment and conditional reliance.
High-uncertainty investigation
Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370
Examine the technical evidence, chronology, competing hypotheses, evidence gaps and controlled reliance findings.
Explore the MH370 CaseOpen Complete MH370 Case PackReader Guides · 8 Languages →How to read the portfolio
Each case demonstrates a client problem, not just a subject area.
Decision problem
What real reliance question would a client need answered?
Evidence burden
What records, contradictions, competing explanations and specialist dependencies had to be controlled?
Commercial use
What type of client decision could this method support in a commissioned matter?
The MH370 work, for example, is not presented merely as an aviation case. It demonstrates high-uncertainty investigation, technical evidence, chronology reconstruction, source dependence, competing hypotheses, evidence-gap control and specialist escalation.
Explore 72 real-world client scenarios →International access
Start with a four-page reader guide, then open the full evidence record.
The public MH370 example can be approached through eight concise language guides before the reader moves into the complete English controlled dossier.
Available guides
English · Bahasa Melayu · 简体中文 · Français · Español · Deutsch · العربية · 日本語
The English controlled dossier remains the governing edition.
Published public-source cases
Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370
A high-uncertainty evidence-assurance investigation
See how Aperture handles official findings, technical models, physical evidence, source dependence, contradictory claims, competing hypotheses, evidence gaps and unresolved causal questions without manufacturing certainty.
Explore the full case study →Claims & evidence audit
Inspect the real claims matrix and Annex E audit rather than a placeholder example.
See the applied audit example →Decision record
See how findings, uncertainty, limitations and permitted reliance are made explicit in the MH370 decision record.
See the applied decision record →Selected work · Financial evidence assurance
Sasol Limited Financial-Statement Reality Assessment
A public-source case showing how Aperture separates a clean financial-statement audit opinion from ineffective internal-control findings, tests cash conversion and assumption-sensitive estimates, weighs counter-evidence and states where specialist review is still required.
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 this case demonstrates
- financial-statement and regulatory-source control
- internal-control chronology
- cash-conversion and working-capital analysis
- impairment and provision sensitivity review
- competing hypotheses and counter-evidence
- conditional reliance and specialist escalation
- right-of-reply and publication controls
What is actually available
- Principal Investigative Dossier
- Claims and Evidence Matrix
- Master Chronology
- Source and Evidence Register
- Technical and adversarial annexes
- Evidence Gap and Specialist Questions records
- Executive Decision and Research Closing records
- Machine-readable research registers
- International reader guides in eight languages
Illustrative structures remain clearly labelled
Where Aperture shows a service structure without a published client case, it is labelled as illustrative. We do not invent client engagements or imply that an example is a real matter.
See the illustrative counterparty verification structure →What this means for your matter
The subject may be completely different from MH370. The client problem is the same: you need to know which information is reliable enough to support a consequential decision, which claims remain uncertain, what contradicts the leading view and what further evidence would materially change the answer.