Professional guide

Evidence Before Narrative

A coherent story is not a substitute for a supported finding.

Share this guide

Narratives can make weak evidence sound stronger than it is.

Research should record support, contradiction and uncertainty before drafting the story.

The final wording should remain proportionate to the evidence.

A human reviewer should be able to see why the conclusion is justified.

Why this matters

This is why Aperture separates research readiness from final document production.

Related Aperture routes

Verification Guides Glossary Evidence Tools Our Work Verification-Need Check

Continue from this point

Related evidence routes

Relevant example

See the principle applied in a public case study or related evidence example.

Open the example →

Professional route

See how this issue can fit into adviser or client work without replacing the main professional role.

Open the professional route →

Illustrative situation

The company on the proposal and the company in the register

You have a proposal from a business you have not used before. The trading name on its website differs from the legal name on the contract.

Which entity would we actually contract with, and which claims belong to that entity?

What we would examine: Compare the entity identifiers, dated corporate records and supplied documents. Attribute group and subsidiary claims to the entity they actually describe.
What you could receive: A company identity brief with an entity map, source references and unresolved attribution questions.

How a finding could read, if the evidence supported it

The trading name can be connected to the contracting entity. The parent company’s operating history does not, by itself, establish the subsidiary’s history.

Why this helps: Your team can see what it knows about the actual counterparty before relying on a familiar name.

This is an illustration, not a completed client assignment or a finding about a real organisation. The actual evidence determines the result.