Independent verification guide
Public information is abundant. Decision-ready evidence is not.
Public information is abundant. Decision-ready evidence is not.The value of public-source due diligence is not the number of search results collected. It is whether the relevant proposition survives source, contradiction and reliance testing.
Share this guide
Signals that may justify a defined review
When this question becomes worth testing
The record is fragmented across filings, reporting, litigation, regulatory sources or other materials.
The apparent evidence may not be independent or may rely on repeated secondary reporting.
You need a clear record of what is established, disputed, missing and still dependent on specialist work.
Public approach
What an Aperture review is trying to establish
1. Set a narrow decision question and evidence universe.
2. Prioritise original and authoritative records where available.
3. Separate independent support from repetition and independent corroboration.
4. Document material gaps, contradictions and the justified level of reliance.
Professional boundary
Where Aperture fits
Aperture's public-source work is complementary to regulated, legal, financial, tax, specialist and private-data diligence. It does not use public availability as a substitute for lawful-use and privacy controls.
The public guide explains the client-facing logic only. Aperture's detailed non-public methodology, templates and controls remain proprietary.
Advising a client on this issue?
You do not need to absorb this work into your own mandate.
If the factual question sits outside your normal role, you can retain the client relationship and introduce Aperture for the defined evidence-review scope. Aperture performs the agreed work; you remain the adviser where appropriate.
Continue from this point
Related evidence routes
Relevant case
See how a large public-source record is structured in the Sasol case.
Open the case →Related guide
Read why public records are not self-explanatory.
Read the guide →Professional route
See how family-office advisers can use a defined evidence-review layer.
For family-office advisers →The decision output
You should be able to see three things clearly.
What is supported
The material evidence that can responsibly support the proposition or finding.
What remains uncertain
Contradictions, missing records, assumptions and dependencies that should not disappear during drafting.
What should happen next
Whether the answer is sufficient for the decision, needs further verification or requires specialist escalation.