Independence and conflict
Known personal, financial, organisational or outcome-based interests are considered before acceptance. A material conflict may require disclosure, safeguards, independent review, restricted scope or refusal.
Client protection and evidence governance
Controls That Protect Responsible Reliance
If a board, executive or adviser may later need to explain why a decision was reasonable, the underlying evidence and decision record should be strong enough to show it.
Research is the process. Responsible reliance is the product.
Control sequence
Evidence Governance at a Glance
01Authority and ScopeConfirm who may instruct the work and how it may be used.
02Controlled Evidence RecordPreserve sources, provenance, analysis and changes.
03Readiness and ReviewResolve material defects and required reviews.
04Approved StatusRelease only what the actual evidence and approval support.
This visual flow is presented as an ordered set of labelled steps. Each step remains readable without animation or colour.
Before acceptance
The matter is tested before the research begins.
Jurisdiction and lawful scope
The proposed work is checked against licensing, privacy, consumer-reporting, legal-services and other regulated-activity risks. Work is restricted or escalated where specialist authority is required.
Decision and intended use
The scope records who may rely on the output, what decision it supports, which countries and periods apply, what evidence is available and what the work will not answer.
During the investigation
Every material finding must remain connected to its evidential origin.
Evidence provenance
Material statements are tied to documents, records, datasets, calculations or authenticated digital items. Model memory, prior conversations and AI-generated recollection are never treated as evidence.
Contradiction and challenge testing
Counter-evidence, dependent sourcing, alternative explanations and facts capable of defeating the working conclusion are actively sought and recorded.
Original evidence protection
Client-supplied files can be preserved separately from OCR, redaction, annotation and analytical working copies. Transformations and access are recorded where chain-of-custody control is material.
Fairness, dignity and specialist limits
Evidence strength does not remove the duty to handle people and professional boundaries responsibly.
Right of reply
Serious criticism of an identifiable person or organisation is assessed for a fair opportunity to respond. A refusal or failure to respond is not treated as proof.
Privacy and proportionality
Unnecessary personal information, private addresses, account details, uninvolved family information and other disproportionate material are excluded or redacted where appropriate.
Specialist escalation
Legal, accounting, engineering, medical, scientific, digital-forensic or other specialist questions are identified precisely rather than simulated by general research.
Before delivery
The conclusion, document and permitted reliance are checked together.
Source freeze and current-status check
Approved narrative, findings, registers, calculations, graphics and evidence cut-off are frozen before final layout. Material legal, regulatory and factual status is rechecked before release.
Rendered PDF inspection
Formal PDFs are rendered and inspected page by page for clipped text, broken tables, missing images, font or glyph defects, incorrect links, page numbering and other technical failures.
Named human approval
No document is marked human-approved until Paul Hattingh or another genuinely authorised approver has actually reviewed and authorised its release.
After delivery
The evidence record has a controlled lifecycle.
- Versions and material changes are recorded rather than silently replaced.
- Confirmed errors can be corrected transparently.
- New evidence can trigger an updated assessment.
- A superseded report remains distinguishable from its replacement.
- A report can be withdrawn where evidence fails authentication or the conclusion is no longer defensible.
- Every finding remains tied to its evidence cut-off, scope and permitted use.
What this means for you
You receive a reviewable decision record, not an unexplained answer.
Tell Aperture what decision depends on the work, what material already exists and what consequences could follow. The proposed scope will identify the controls and output depth appropriate to that risk.
Discuss a MatterAI authority, evidence & human control
THREE QUESTIONS MUST NOT BE COLLAPSED INTO ONE.
AUTHORITY
Was the action or use authorised within the relevant mandate, system or process?
EVIDENCE
Is the material proposition sufficiently supported by suitable underlying evidence?
JUDGEMENT
What does that evidence mean for the actual decision, and who retains responsibility for that judgement?
AI can accelerate research. It cannot create authority or evidence.