Find the right route

START WITH WHAT YOU ARE TRYING TO DO.

You do not need to know Aperture's internal structure. Choose the situation and follow the shortest 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.

START WITH WHAT YOU ARE TRYING TO DO.

I need one fact, source or claim checked

I have a larger evidence problem

My team needs this repeatedly

I want to refer or sell Aperture

I am counsel or an adviser

I am dealing with a distressed matter

I need monitoring

I am not sure