Find your problem before you choose a product.

Situation: A vendor presents impressive accuracy, safety or performance figures for an AI product.

Evidence question: The buyer must decide whether the benchmarks, comparison set, testing conditions and source evidence support the claims.

What Aperture would test: Trace the material AI claim to its source evidence, test benchmarks and assumptions, identify contradictions and state what the intended use can responsibly support.

Likely route: AI Reliance & Claims Verification

Indicative fee: US$3,000–US$7,500

Specialist boundary: Technical, legal, cybersecurity or model-validation questions remain with appropriately qualified specialists.

Situation: A procurement team must choose between competing AI platforms whose claims are difficult to compare.

Evidence question: The decision depends on testing material representations on a consistent evidentiary basis.

What Aperture would test: Trace the material AI claim to its source evidence, test benchmarks and assumptions, identify contradictions and state what the intended use can responsibly support.

Likely route: AI Reliance & Claims Verification

Indicative fee: US$3,000–US$7,500

Specialist boundary: Technical, legal, cybersecurity or model-validation questions remain with appropriately qualified specialists.

Situation: A supplier predicts substantial savings or revenue growth from AI adoption.

Evidence question: Management needs to know which assumptions are independently supported and which remain sales projections.

What Aperture would test: Trace the material AI claim to its source evidence, test benchmarks and assumptions, identify contradictions and state what the intended use can responsibly support.

Likely route: AI Reliance & Claims Verification

Indicative fee: US$3,000–US$7,500

Specialist boundary: Technical, legal, cybersecurity or model-validation questions remain with appropriately qualified specialists.

Situation: A vendor says its system is safer than alternatives.

Evidence question: The buyer needs an independent record of what was tested, what was excluded and whether the stated evidence supports the intended use.

What Aperture would test: Trace the material AI claim to its source evidence, test benchmarks and assumptions, identify contradictions and state what the intended use can responsibly support.

Likely route: AI Reliance & Claims Verification

Indicative fee: US$3,000–US$7,500

Specialist boundary: Technical, legal, cybersecurity or model-validation questions remain with appropriately qualified specialists.

Situation: An AI provider describes its product as compliant with applicable rules or standards.

Evidence question: The organisation needs the factual basis separated from legal conclusions that require qualified counsel.

What Aperture would test: Trace the material AI claim to its source evidence, test benchmarks and assumptions, identify contradictions and state what the intended use can responsibly support.

Likely route: AI Reliance & Claims Verification

Indicative fee: US$3,000–US$7,500

Specialist boundary: Technical, legal, cybersecurity or model-validation questions remain with appropriately qualified specialists.

Situation: A startup says its model, data or method is uniquely proprietary.

Evidence question: Investors or buyers need to test available ownership, provenance, development and third-party dependency evidence.

What Aperture would test: Trace the material AI claim to its source evidence, test benchmarks and assumptions, identify contradictions and state what the intended use can responsibly support.

Likely route: AI Reliance & Claims Verification

Indicative fee: US$3,000–US$7,500

Specialist boundary: Technical, legal, cybersecurity or model-validation questions remain with appropriately qualified specialists.

Situation: A vendor relies on selected benchmarks to show superior performance.

Evidence question: The buyer needs to know whether those benchmarks reflect the real operating environment and material decision.

What Aperture would test: Trace the material AI claim to its source evidence, test benchmarks and assumptions, identify contradictions and state what the intended use can responsibly support.

Likely route: AI Reliance & Claims Verification

Indicative fee: US$3,000–US$7,500

Specialist boundary: Technical, legal, cybersecurity or model-validation questions remain with appropriately qualified specialists.

Situation: A supplier makes claims about the origin, quality, permission or diversity of its training data.

Evidence question: The client needs to establish what the accessible record can actually support.

What Aperture would test: Trace the material AI claim to its source evidence, test benchmarks and assumptions, identify contradictions and state what the intended use can responsibly support.

Likely route: AI Reliance & Claims Verification

Indicative fee: US$3,000–US$7,500

Specialist boundary: Technical, legal, cybersecurity or model-validation questions remain with appropriately qualified specialists.

Situation: A vendor says its system can explain its outputs.

Evidence question: The purchaser must determine what “explainable” means in practice and whether the evidence supports the reliance expected of users.

What Aperture would test: Trace the material AI claim to its source evidence, test benchmarks and assumptions, identify contradictions and state what the intended use can responsibly support.

Likely route: AI Reliance & Claims Verification

Indicative fee: US$3,000–US$7,500

Specialist boundary: Technical, legal, cybersecurity or model-validation questions remain with appropriately qualified specialists.

Situation: A pilot appears successful and management is ready to sign a long-term agreement.

Evidence question: An independent review tests whether the result can be generalised beyond the pilot conditions.

What Aperture would test: Trace the material AI claim to its source evidence, test benchmarks and assumptions, identify contradictions and state what the intended use can responsibly support.

Likely route: AI Reliance & Claims Verification

Indicative fee: US$3,000–US$7,500

Specialist boundary: Technical, legal, cybersecurity or model-validation questions remain with appropriately qualified specialists.

Situation: A business receives a long AI-generated report with extensive citations.

Evidence question: Before using it, the organisation needs the material claims, sources and citation relationships independently tested.

What Aperture would test: Trace generated claims to original sources, test omissions and contradictions, and separate machine synthesis from evidence capable of supporting the decision.

Likely route: AI Reliance & Claims Verification

Indicative fee: US$3,000–US$7,500

Specialist boundary: Aperture tests the factual record. Legal interpretation and technical model validation remain specialist responsibilities.

Situation: An internal copilot recommends a business action.

Evidence question: The responsible manager needs to know which factual propositions support the recommendation and what remains untested.

What Aperture would test: Trace generated claims to original sources, test omissions and contradictions, and separate machine synthesis from evidence capable of supporting the decision.

Likely route: AI Reliance & Claims Verification

Indicative fee: US$3,000–US$7,500

Specialist boundary: Aperture tests the factual record. Legal interpretation and technical model validation remain specialist responsibilities.

Situation: AI has summarised due-diligence material and highlighted risks.

Evidence question: The deal team must determine whether important contradictions, exclusions or weak sources were missed.

What Aperture would test: Trace generated claims to original sources, test omissions and contradictions, and separate machine synthesis from evidence capable of supporting the decision.

Likely route: AI Reliance & Claims Verification

Indicative fee: US$3,000–US$7,500

Specialist boundary: Aperture tests the factual record. Legal interpretation and technical model validation remain specialist responsibilities.

Situation: A board paper includes AI-generated analysis.

Evidence question: Directors need a clear record of which material statements are established, inferred, uncertain or unsupported.

What Aperture would test: Trace generated claims to original sources, test omissions and contradictions, and separate machine synthesis from evidence capable of supporting the decision.

Likely route: AI Reliance & Claims Verification

Indicative fee: US$3,000–US$7,500

Specialist boundary: Aperture tests the factual record. Legal interpretation and technical model validation remain specialist responsibilities.

Situation: Management relies on an AI summary of a large document set.

Evidence question: The decision requires testing whether the summary preserved material qualifications, exceptions and conflicting evidence.

What Aperture would test: Trace generated claims to original sources, test omissions and contradictions, and separate machine synthesis from evidence capable of supporting the decision.

Likely route: AI Reliance & Claims Verification

Indicative fee: US$3,000–US$7,500

Specialist boundary: Aperture tests the factual record. Legal interpretation and technical model validation remain specialist responsibilities.

Situation: A legal team receives AI-assisted factual or source research.

Evidence question: Aperture can test factual propositions and source accuracy while legal interpretation remains with qualified counsel.

What Aperture would test: Trace generated claims to original sources, test omissions and contradictions, and separate machine synthesis from evidence capable of supporting the decision.

Likely route: AI Reliance & Claims Verification

Indicative fee: US$3,000–US$7,500

Specialist boundary: Aperture tests the factual record. Legal interpretation and technical model validation remain specialist responsibilities.

Situation: An investment memorandum includes AI-generated market, competitor or company analysis.

Evidence question: The investment committee needs the material evidence tested before relying on the thesis.

What Aperture would test: Trace generated claims to original sources, test omissions and contradictions, and separate machine synthesis from evidence capable of supporting the decision.

Likely route: AI Reliance & Claims Verification

Indicative fee: US$3,000–US$7,500

Specialist boundary: Aperture tests the factual record. Legal interpretation and technical model validation remain specialist responsibilities.

Situation: An AI tool scores or ranks suppliers.

Evidence question: Procurement needs to understand the inputs, evidence quality, contradictions and limitations behind the ranking.

What Aperture would test: Trace generated claims to original sources, test omissions and contradictions, and separate machine synthesis from evidence capable of supporting the decision.

Likely route: AI Reliance & Claims Verification

Indicative fee: US$3,000–US$7,500

Specialist boundary: Aperture tests the factual record. Legal interpretation and technical model validation remain specialist responsibilities.

Situation: A business is about to act on a risk score generated by an automated system.

Evidence question: The responsible owner needs to test whether the underlying record justifies the consequence attached to that score.

What Aperture would test: Trace generated claims to original sources, test omissions and contradictions, and separate machine synthesis from evidence capable of supporting the decision.

Likely route: AI Reliance & Claims Verification

Indicative fee: US$3,000–US$7,500

Specialist boundary: Aperture tests the factual record. Legal interpretation and technical model validation remain specialist responsibilities.

Situation: A senior executive receives a concise generated answer to a complex question.

Evidence question: Independent verification tests the key proposition before speed becomes misplaced confidence.

What Aperture would test: Trace generated claims to original sources, test omissions and contradictions, and separate machine synthesis from evidence capable of supporting the decision.

Likely route: AI Reliance & Claims Verification

Indicative fee: US$3,000–US$7,500

Specialist boundary: Aperture tests the factual record. Legal interpretation and technical model validation remain specialist responsibilities.

Situation: An organisation discovers that AI output has begun influencing decisions without a defined verification gate.

Evidence question: It needs to map where material reliance occurs and which claims require testing.

What Aperture would test: Map where AI output becomes material reliance, test the documented controls and identify claims that still lack independent verification.

Likely route: AI Reliance & Claims Verification

Indicative fee: US$3,000–US$7,500

Specialist boundary: Aperture does not replace cybersecurity, engineering, legal or regulated AI assurance specialists.

Situation: Management wants to know whether human review is meaningful or merely procedural.

Evidence question: The evidence record must show where people challenge, reject, amend and approve machine-assisted work.

What Aperture would test: Map where AI output becomes material reliance, test the documented controls and identify claims that still lack independent verification.

Likely route: AI Reliance & Claims Verification

Indicative fee: US$3,000–US$7,500

Specialist boundary: Aperture does not replace cybersecurity, engineering, legal or regulated AI assurance specialists.

Situation: An AI-related failure produces conflicting accounts from the vendor, internal users and technical teams.

Evidence question: The organisation needs a neutral chronology and proposition-level evidence record.

What Aperture would test: Map where AI output becomes material reliance, test the documented controls and identify claims that still lack independent verification.

Likely route: AI Reliance & Claims Verification

Indicative fee: US$3,000–US$7,500

Specialist boundary: Aperture does not replace cybersecurity, engineering, legal or regulated AI assurance specialists.

Situation: Performance appears to have changed after deployment.

Evidence question: Decision-makers need to distinguish documented drift, changed inputs, changed use and unsupported explanation.

What Aperture would test: Map where AI output becomes material reliance, test the documented controls and identify claims that still lack independent verification.

Likely route: AI Reliance & Claims Verification

Indicative fee: US$3,000–US$7,500

Specialist boundary: Aperture does not replace cybersecurity, engineering, legal or regulated AI assurance specialists.

Situation: A system performs well in ordinary cases but may fail in exceptional ones.

Evidence question: The organisation needs to identify the cases that carry the greatest consequence if the output is wrong.

What Aperture would test: Map where AI output becomes material reliance, test the documented controls and identify claims that still lack independent verification.

Likely route: AI Reliance & Claims Verification

Indicative fee: US$3,000–US$7,500

Specialist boundary: Aperture does not replace cybersecurity, engineering, legal or regulated AI assurance specialists.

Situation: A governance team cannot identify where generated outputs have become business inputs.

Evidence question: A structured review maps material claims, owners, consequences and existing verification controls.

What Aperture would test: Map where AI output becomes material reliance, test the documented controls and identify claims that still lack independent verification.

Likely route: AI Reliance & Claims Verification

Indicative fee: US$3,000–US$7,500

Specialist boundary: Aperture does not replace cybersecurity, engineering, legal or regulated AI assurance specialists.

Situation: A company publicly states that every important AI output is reviewed by a person.

Evidence question: The available process records need to support what “reviewed” actually means.

What Aperture would test: Map where AI output becomes material reliance, test the documented controls and identify claims that still lack independent verification.

Likely route: AI Reliance & Claims Verification

Indicative fee: US$3,000–US$7,500

Specialist boundary: Aperture does not replace cybersecurity, engineering, legal or regulated AI assurance specialists.

Situation: A vendor releases a major model update.

Evidence question: The client must decide whether prior testing and reliance findings remain applicable to the changed system.

What Aperture would test: Map where AI output becomes material reliance, test the documented controls and identify claims that still lack independent verification.

Likely route: AI Reliance & Claims Verification

Indicative fee: US$3,000–US$7,500

Specialist boundary: Aperture does not replace cybersecurity, engineering, legal or regulated AI assurance specialists.

Situation: The initial adoption decision was supported, but operating evidence is accumulating.

Evidence question: Defined indicators and new contradictions must be monitored for changes to justified reliance.

What Aperture would test: Map where AI output becomes material reliance, test the documented controls and identify claims that still lack independent verification.

Likely route: AI Reliance & Claims Verification

Indicative fee: US$3,000–US$7,500

Specialist boundary: Aperture does not replace cybersecurity, engineering, legal or regulated AI assurance specialists.

Situation: A governance report presents the organisation’s AI controls as mature.

Evidence question: An independent challenge tests whether the evidence supports the stated level of control.

What Aperture would test: Map where AI output becomes material reliance, test the documented controls and identify claims that still lack independent verification.

Likely route: AI Reliance & Claims Verification

Indicative fee: US$3,000–US$7,500

Specialist boundary: Aperture does not replace cybersecurity, engineering, legal or regulated AI assurance specialists.

Situation: A buyer is considering a privately held business based on management revenue, customer and growth claims.

Evidence question: The transaction depends on identifying which representations withstand independent testing.

What Aperture would test: Test the material transaction representations, entities, ownership, chronology, independent corroboration and facts capable of changing the deal decision.

Likely route: Enhanced Public-Source Due Diligence

Indicative fee: US$5,000–US$10,000

Specialist boundary: Legal, tax, financial and regulated transaction conclusions remain with the relevant advisers.

Situation: The buyer has entered exclusivity and new information conflicts with the original deal narrative.

Evidence question: The decision is whether to proceed, renegotiate, extend diligence or stop.

What Aperture would test: Test the material transaction representations, entities, ownership, chronology, independent corroboration and facts capable of changing the deal decision.

Likely route: Enhanced Public-Source Due Diligence

Indicative fee: US$5,000–US$10,000

Specialist boundary: Legal, tax, financial and regulated transaction conclusions remain with the relevant advisers.

Situation: Sellers provide a detailed management presentation.

Evidence question: The buyer needs the material representations separated into established fact, inference, forecast and unresolved claim.

What Aperture would test: Test the material transaction representations, entities, ownership, chronology, independent corroboration and facts capable of changing the deal decision.

Likely route: Enhanced Public-Source Due Diligence

Indicative fee: US$5,000–US$10,000

Specialist boundary: Legal, tax, financial and regulated transaction conclusions remain with the relevant advisers.

Situation: A transaction relies on recurring, diversified or defensible revenue.

Evidence question: Independent research tests customer concentration, public evidence, contract claims and known dependencies without replacing an audit.

What Aperture would test: Test the material transaction representations, entities, ownership, chronology, independent corroboration and facts capable of changing the deal decision.

Likely route: Enhanced Public-Source Due Diligence

Indicative fee: US$5,000–US$10,000

Specialist boundary: Legal, tax, financial and regulated transaction conclusions remain with the relevant advisers.

Situation: Management says no customer can materially affect the business.

Evidence question: The buyer needs the available evidence tested before relying on that statement.

What Aperture would test: Test the material transaction representations, entities, ownership, chronology, independent corroboration and facts capable of changing the deal decision.

Likely route: Enhanced Public-Source Due Diligence

Indicative fee: US$5,000–US$10,000

Specialist boundary: Legal, tax, financial and regulated transaction conclusions remain with the relevant advisers.

Situation: After closing, the parties disagree about what was known or represented.

Evidence question: A chronology reconstructs documents, communications, changes and material contradictions.

What Aperture would test: Test the material transaction representations, entities, ownership, chronology, independent corroboration and facts capable of changing the deal decision.

Likely route: Enhanced Public-Source Due Diligence

Indicative fee: US$5,000–US$10,000

Specialist boundary: Legal, tax, financial and regulated transaction conclusions remain with the relevant advisers.

Situation: A business unit is sold as independently viable.

Evidence question: The buyer must test hidden dependencies on the parent, shared systems, licences, staff, suppliers and data.

What Aperture would test: Test the material transaction representations, entities, ownership, chronology, independent corroboration and facts capable of changing the deal decision.

Likely route: Enhanced Public-Source Due Diligence

Indicative fee: US$5,000–US$10,000

Specialist boundary: Legal, tax, financial and regulated transaction conclusions remain with the relevant advisers.

Situation: A target operates across unfamiliar jurisdictions.

Evidence question: The buyer needs an integrated factual record of ownership, operations, regulatory exposure and specialist dependencies.

What Aperture would test: Test the material transaction representations, entities, ownership, chronology, independent corroboration and facts capable of changing the deal decision.

Likely route: Enhanced Public-Source Due Diligence

Indicative fee: US$5,000–US$10,000

Specialist boundary: Legal, tax, financial and regulated transaction conclusions remain with the relevant advisers.

Situation: A time-sensitive acquisition is based on incomplete or rapidly changing information.

Evidence question: The buyer needs the smallest responsible evidence test before committing capital.

What Aperture would test: Test the material transaction representations, entities, ownership, chronology, independent corroboration and facts capable of changing the deal decision.

Likely route: Enhanced Public-Source Due Diligence

Indicative fee: US$5,000–US$10,000

Specialist boundary: Legal, tax, financial and regulated transaction conclusions remain with the relevant advisers.

Situation: A transaction is nearly approved.

Evidence question: An independent review deliberately searches for evidence, assumptions or alternative explanations capable of changing the decision.

What Aperture would test: Test the material transaction representations, entities, ownership, chronology, independent corroboration and facts capable of changing the deal decision.

Likely route: Enhanced Public-Source Due Diligence

Indicative fee: US$5,000–US$10,000

Specialist boundary: Legal, tax, financial and regulated transaction conclusions remain with the relevant advisers.

Situation: An investment committee receives a compelling thesis supported by forecasts and management claims.

Evidence question: Independent challenge tests the assumptions most capable of changing the investment decision.

What Aperture would test: Test the investment thesis, source independence, market and operating assumptions, contrary evidence and unresolved facts capable of changing capital allocation.

Likely route: Independent Challenge Review

Indicative fee: US$4,500–US$10,000

Specialist boundary: Aperture does not provide investment advice or make the investment decision.

Situation: A family office is approached with an opportunity outside its normal expertise.

Evidence question: It needs an independent view of promoters, entities, corroboration, contradictions and material unknowns.

What Aperture would test: Test the investment thesis, source independence, market and operating assumptions, contrary evidence and unresolved facts capable of changing capital allocation.

Likely route: Independent Challenge Review

Indicative fee: US$4,500–US$10,000

Specialist boundary: Aperture does not provide investment advice or make the investment decision.

Situation: A startup claims proprietary technology, exceptional performance and a large market.

Evidence question: The investor needs to know which claims justify confidence and which require specialist validation.

What Aperture would test: Test the investment thesis, source independence, market and operating assumptions, contrary evidence and unresolved facts capable of changing capital allocation.

Likely route: Independent Challenge Review

Indicative fee: US$4,500–US$10,000

Specialist boundary: Aperture does not provide investment advice or make the investment decision.

Situation: A growth investment depends on rapid adoption in a developing market.

Evidence question: The committee needs the market evidence, cited sources and contrary indicators tested.

What Aperture would test: Test the investment thesis, source independence, market and operating assumptions, contrary evidence and unresolved facts capable of changing capital allocation.

Likely route: Independent Challenge Review

Indicative fee: US$4,500–US$10,000

Specialist boundary: Aperture does not provide investment advice or make the investment decision.

Situation: An investor is offered minority protection and access rights.

Evidence question: The factual operating history and governance practice need testing alongside formal legal review.

What Aperture would test: Test the investment thesis, source independence, market and operating assumptions, contrary evidence and unresolved facts capable of changing capital allocation.

Likely route: Independent Challenge Review

Indicative fee: US$4,500–US$10,000

Specialist boundary: Aperture does not provide investment advice or make the investment decision.

Situation: An investor is asked to rely heavily on a lead investor’s diligence.

Evidence question: Independent review identifies which material propositions were actually tested and which were inherited without verification.

What Aperture would test: Test the investment thesis, source independence, market and operating assumptions, contrary evidence and unresolved facts capable of changing capital allocation.

Likely route: Independent Challenge Review

Indicative fee: US$4,500–US$10,000

Specialist boundary: Aperture does not provide investment advice or make the investment decision.

Situation: A manager presents an attractive historical record.

Evidence question: The investor needs the public and supplied evidence reconciled before relying on the performance narrative.

What Aperture would test: Test the investment thesis, source independence, market and operating assumptions, contrary evidence and unresolved facts capable of changing capital allocation.

Likely route: Independent Challenge Review

Indicative fee: US$4,500–US$10,000

Specialist boundary: Aperture does not provide investment advice or make the investment decision.

Situation: An investment promises both financial return and measurable social impact.

Evidence question: The evidence must support the causal and outcome claims separately.

What Aperture would test: Test the investment thesis, source independence, market and operating assumptions, contrary evidence and unresolved facts capable of changing capital allocation.

Likely route: Independent Challenge Review

Indicative fee: US$4,500–US$10,000

Specialist boundary: Aperture does not provide investment advice or make the investment decision.

Situation: A company requests urgent capital based on a turnaround plan.

Evidence question: The funder needs to test the factual assumptions and conditions required for the plan to work.

What Aperture would test: Test the investment thesis, source independence, market and operating assumptions, contrary evidence and unresolved facts capable of changing capital allocation.

Likely route: Independent Challenge Review

Indicative fee: US$4,500–US$10,000

Specialist boundary: Aperture does not provide investment advice or make the investment decision.

Situation: New information conflicts with earlier investment assumptions.

Evidence question: The owner needs a focused reassessment of the propositions that still carry the holding or follow-on decision.

What Aperture would test: Test the investment thesis, source independence, market and operating assumptions, contrary evidence and unresolved facts capable of changing capital allocation.

Likely route: Independent Challenge Review

Indicative fee: US$4,500–US$10,000

Specialist boundary: Aperture does not provide investment advice or make the investment decision.

Situation: A company is considering a substantial relationship with an unfamiliar foreign entity.

Evidence question: It needs ownership, leadership, history, exposure and adverse information tested before commitment.

What Aperture would test: Test identity, ownership, control, capability, track record, material relationships, adverse information and gaps before commercial reliance.

Likely route: Enhanced Public-Source Due Diligence

Indicative fee: US$5,000–US$10,000

Specialist boundary: Person-specific or regulated screening is accepted only where lawful and appropriately authorised.

Situation: The stated ownership of a counterparty appears incomplete.

Evidence question: Decision-makers need the accessible corporate and relational evidence mapped without implying powers Aperture does not hold.

What Aperture would test: Test identity, ownership, control, capability, track record, material relationships, adverse information and gaps before commercial reliance.

Likely route: Enhanced Public-Source Due Diligence

Indicative fee: US$5,000–US$10,000

Specialist boundary: Person-specific or regulated screening is accepted only where lawful and appropriately authorised.

Situation: Two organisations are considering a long-term alliance.

Evidence question: Each needs the other’s representations, capability, history and strategic fit independently examined.

What Aperture would test: Test identity, ownership, control, capability, track record, material relationships, adverse information and gaps before commercial reliance.

Likely route: Enhanced Public-Source Due Diligence

Indicative fee: US$5,000–US$10,000

Specialist boundary: Person-specific or regulated screening is accepted only where lawful and appropriately authorised.

Situation: A proposed partner claims local access, licences, relationships and execution capacity.

Evidence question: The investor needs to know what can actually be established.

What Aperture would test: Test identity, ownership, control, capability, track record, material relationships, adverse information and gaps before commercial reliance.

Likely route: Enhanced Public-Source Due Diligence

Indicative fee: US$5,000–US$10,000

Specialist boundary: Person-specific or regulated screening is accepted only where lawful and appropriately authorised.

Situation: A distributor promises national reach and market access.

Evidence question: The supplier needs evidence of operating capacity, relationships, footprint and prior performance.

What Aperture would test: Test identity, ownership, control, capability, track record, material relationships, adverse information and gaps before commercial reliance.

Likely route: Enhanced Public-Source Due Diligence

Indicative fee: US$5,000–US$10,000

Specialist boundary: Person-specific or regulated screening is accepted only where lawful and appropriately authorised.

Situation: A buyer receives an information memorandum or broker listing containing strong financial, customer and growth representations.

Evidence question: The material claims need testing before an offer or deeper diligence.

What Aperture would test: Test identity, ownership, control, capability, track record, material relationships, adverse information and gaps before commercial reliance.

Likely route: Enhanced Public-Source Due Diligence

Indicative fee: US$5,000–US$10,000

Specialist boundary: Person-specific or regulated screening is accepted only where lawful and appropriately authorised.

Situation: Shareholders give materially different accounts of how an arrangement developed.

Evidence question: A documentary chronology identifies what the record establishes and where it remains silent.

What Aperture would test: Test identity, ownership, control, capability, track record, material relationships, adverse information and gaps before commercial reliance.

Likely route: Enhanced Public-Source Due Diligence

Indicative fee: US$5,000–US$10,000

Specialist boundary: Person-specific or regulated screening is accepted only where lawful and appropriately authorised.

Situation: A proposed counterparty sits within a complex network of entities.

Evidence question: The client needs a clear ownership, control and relationship map before relying on the apparent structure.

What Aperture would test: Test identity, ownership, control, capability, track record, material relationships, adverse information and gaps before commercial reliance.

Likely route: Enhanced Public-Source Due Diligence

Indicative fee: US$5,000–US$10,000

Specialist boundary: Person-specific or regulated screening is accepted only where lawful and appropriately authorised.

Situation: An intermediary claims influence, access or authority to arrange a transaction.

Evidence question: The client needs those material representations independently tested.

What Aperture would test: Test identity, ownership, control, capability, track record, material relationships, adverse information and gaps before commercial reliance.

Likely route: Enhanced Public-Source Due Diligence

Indicative fee: US$5,000–US$10,000

Specialist boundary: Person-specific or regulated screening is accepted only where lawful and appropriately authorised.

Situation: A familiar partner’s ownership, leadership or operating circumstances have changed.

Evidence question: The organisation must decide whether earlier reliance remains justified.

What Aperture would test: Test identity, ownership, control, capability, track record, material relationships, adverse information and gaps before commercial reliance.

Likely route: Enhanced Public-Source Due Diligence

Indicative fee: US$5,000–US$10,000

Specialist boundary: Person-specific or regulated screening is accepted only where lawful and appropriately authorised.

Situation: A board relies on a spreadsheet forecasting substantial returns.

Evidence question: Calculations, inputs, provenance, assumptions and sensitivity require independent testing without replacing an audit.

What Aperture would test: Test definitions, periods, source inputs, calculations, assumptions, exclusions, sensitivities and contradictory evidence behind the financial proposition.

Likely route: Reality Verification Assessment

Indicative fee: US$2,500–US$5,500

Specialist boundary: Audit, valuation, tax and regulated financial opinions remain with qualified professionals.

Situation: Management’s forecast has changed repeatedly before a major capital decision.

Evidence question: The board needs the changes, assumptions and explanatory evidence reconciled.

What Aperture would test: Test definitions, periods, source inputs, calculations, assumptions, exclusions, sensitivities and contradictory evidence behind the financial proposition.

Likely route: Reality Verification Assessment

Indicative fee: US$2,500–US$5,500

Specialist boundary: Audit, valuation, tax and regulated financial opinions remain with qualified professionals.

Situation: A valuation depends on market, growth, discount or comparable-company inputs.

Evidence question: The client needs to establish whether the factual inputs are current, relevant and independently supported.

What Aperture would test: Test definitions, periods, source inputs, calculations, assumptions, exclusions, sensitivities and contradictory evidence behind the financial proposition.

Likely route: Reality Verification Assessment

Indicative fee: US$2,500–US$5,500

Specialist boundary: Audit, valuation, tax and regulated financial opinions remain with qualified professionals.

Situation: A business plan presents an internally coherent story.

Evidence question: The decision depends on testing the external evidence and hidden dependencies behind the numbers.

What Aperture would test: Test definitions, periods, source inputs, calculations, assumptions, exclusions, sensitivities and contradictory evidence behind the financial proposition.

Likely route: Reality Verification Assessment

Indicative fee: US$2,500–US$5,500

Specialist boundary: Audit, valuation, tax and regulated financial opinions remain with qualified professionals.

Situation: A project sponsor promises substantial savings.

Evidence question: Management needs the baseline, calculation method, excluded costs and operating assumptions tested.

What Aperture would test: Test definitions, periods, source inputs, calculations, assumptions, exclusions, sensitivities and contradictory evidence behind the financial proposition.

Likely route: Reality Verification Assessment

Indicative fee: US$2,500–US$5,500

Specialist boundary: Audit, valuation, tax and regulated financial opinions remain with qualified professionals.

Situation: A company treats its sales pipeline as evidence of future revenue.

Evidence question: The board or investor needs the stages, conversion assumptions and source records examined.

What Aperture would test: Test definitions, periods, source inputs, calculations, assumptions, exclusions, sensitivities and contradictory evidence behind the financial proposition.

Likely route: Reality Verification Assessment

Indicative fee: US$2,500–US$5,500

Specialist boundary: Audit, valuation, tax and regulated financial opinions remain with qualified professionals.

Situation: A company says each additional customer is profitable.

Evidence question: The decision requires testing the factual inputs, allocation choices and conditions under which the claim holds.

What Aperture would test: Test definitions, periods, source inputs, calculations, assumptions, exclusions, sensitivities and contradictory evidence behind the financial proposition.

Likely route: Reality Verification Assessment

Indicative fee: US$2,500–US$5,500

Specialist boundary: Audit, valuation, tax and regulated financial opinions remain with qualified professionals.

Situation: Creditors, owners and advisers receive conflicting accounts of a distressed business.

Evidence question: The factual chronology, entities, asset claims and material transactions need structuring for qualified legal and insolvency specialists.

What Aperture would test: Test definitions, periods, source inputs, calculations, assumptions, exclusions, sensitivities and contradictory evidence behind the financial proposition.

Likely route: Reality Verification Assessment

Indicative fee: US$2,500–US$5,500

Specialist boundary: Audit, valuation, tax and regulated financial opinions remain with qualified professionals.

Situation: A major event produces changing loss estimates and competing narratives.

Evidence question: The insurer, reinsurer or adviser needs the factual inputs, aggregation assumptions and uncertainty mapped for actuarial and coverage specialists.

What Aperture would test: Test definitions, periods, source inputs, calculations, assumptions, exclusions, sensitivities and contradictory evidence behind the financial proposition.

Likely route: Reality Verification Assessment

Indicative fee: US$2,500–US$5,500

Specialist boundary: Audit, valuation, tax and regulated financial opinions remain with qualified professionals.

Situation: Different teams rely on different versions of the same model.

Evidence question: A controlled evidence record identifies which inputs changed, why they changed and what each version supports.

What Aperture would test: Test definitions, periods, source inputs, calculations, assumptions, exclusions, sensitivities and contradictory evidence behind the financial proposition.

Likely route: Reality Verification Assessment

Indicative fee: US$2,500–US$5,500

Specialist boundary: Audit, valuation, tax and regulated financial opinions remain with qualified professionals.

Situation: Serious allegations are made against senior management.

Evidence question: The board needs established facts, claims, inference, repetition, contrary evidence and unresolved questions separated.

What Aperture would test: Test the proposition presented to the board, the evidence supporting it, contrary facts, omitted uncertainty and the conditions required for responsible approval.

Likely route: Independent Challenge Review

Indicative fee: US$4,500–US$10,000

Specialist boundary: Directors and authorised officers retain their statutory and governance responsibilities.

Situation: Directors receive a board paper supporting a consequential approval.

Evidence question: They need the material factual propositions and source trail tested before voting.

What Aperture would test: Test the proposition presented to the board, the evidence supporting it, contrary facts, omitted uncertainty and the conditions required for responsible approval.

Likely route: Independent Challenge Review

Indicative fee: US$4,500–US$10,000

Specialist boundary: Directors and authorised officers retain their statutory and governance responsibilities.

Situation: A board suspects that repeated reports may omit important qualifications.

Evidence question: Independent review tests whether the information can carry the oversight decision.

What Aperture would test: Test the proposition presented to the board, the evidence supporting it, contrary facts, omitted uncertainty and the conditions required for responsible approval.

Likely route: Independent Challenge Review

Indicative fee: US$4,500–US$10,000

Specialist boundary: Directors and authorised officers retain their statutory and governance responsibilities.

Situation: A possible undisclosed relationship may affect a decision.

Evidence question: The board needs the available relational and documentary evidence mapped before determining the appropriate specialist response.

What Aperture would test: Test the proposition presented to the board, the evidence supporting it, contrary facts, omitted uncertainty and the conditions required for responsible approval.

Likely route: Independent Challenge Review

Indicative fee: US$4,500–US$10,000

Specialist boundary: Directors and authorised officers retain their statutory and governance responsibilities.

Situation: A transaction involves connected persons or entities.

Evidence question: The governing body needs a clear factual record of relationships, chronology, representations and disclosed controls.

What Aperture would test: Test the proposition presented to the board, the evidence supporting it, contrary facts, omitted uncertainty and the conditions required for responsible approval.

Likely route: Independent Challenge Review

Indicative fee: US$4,500–US$10,000

Specialist boundary: Directors and authorised officers retain their statutory and governance responsibilities.

Situation: A committee recommends approval after extensive work.

Evidence question: The board wants one independent attempt to identify what the process may have missed.

What Aperture would test: Test the proposition presented to the board, the evidence supporting it, contrary facts, omitted uncertainty and the conditions required for responsible approval.

Likely route: Independent Challenge Review

Indicative fee: US$4,500–US$10,000

Specialist boundary: Directors and authorised officers retain their statutory and governance responsibilities.

Situation: Management says a control is fully implemented.

Evidence question: The board needs evidence that the control operates in practice, not merely that a policy exists.

What Aperture would test: Test the proposition presented to the board, the evidence supporting it, contrary facts, omitted uncertainty and the conditions required for responsible approval.

Likely route: Independent Challenge Review

Indicative fee: US$4,500–US$10,000

Specialist boundary: Directors and authorised officers retain their statutory and governance responsibilities.

Situation: A consequential action may have exceeded delegated authority.

Evidence question: The factual record of approvals, dates, roles and communications needs reconstruction for legal or governance review.

What Aperture would test: Test the proposition presented to the board, the evidence supporting it, contrary facts, omitted uncertainty and the conditions required for responsible approval.

Likely route: Independent Challenge Review

Indicative fee: US$4,500–US$10,000

Specialist boundary: Directors and authorised officers retain their statutory and governance responsibilities.

Situation: Directors receive conflicting accounts during a rapidly developing event.

Evidence question: A controlled briefing separates confirmed facts from untested claims and identifies immediate evidence gaps.

What Aperture would test: Test the proposition presented to the board, the evidence supporting it, contrary facts, omitted uncertainty and the conditions required for responsible approval.

Likely route: Independent Challenge Review

Indicative fee: US$4,500–US$10,000

Specialist boundary: Directors and authorised officers retain their statutory and governance responsibilities.

Situation: A serious failure has occurred and explanations are forming quickly.

Evidence question: The board needs an independent chronology before accepting a convenient narrative.

What Aperture would test: Test the proposition presented to the board, the evidence supporting it, contrary facts, omitted uncertainty and the conditions required for responsible approval.

Likely route: Independent Challenge Review

Indicative fee: US$4,500–US$10,000

Specialist boundary: Directors and authorised officers retain their statutory and governance responsibilities.

Situation: A committee notices unusual similarities between bids.

Evidence question: Corporate links, addresses, directors, chronology and pricing patterns need proportionate examination.

What Aperture would test: Test supplier identity, capability, ownership, track record, bid representations, conflicts, certifications and material delivery dependencies.

Likely route: Enhanced Public-Source Due Diligence

Indicative fee: US$5,000–US$10,000

Specialist boundary: Procurement law, engineering acceptance and regulated compliance determinations may require specialists.

Situation: Management says only one supplier can meet the requirement.

Evidence question: The evidence behind uniqueness, urgency and market availability needs testing.

What Aperture would test: Test supplier identity, capability, ownership, track record, bid representations, conflicts, certifications and material delivery dependencies.

Likely route: Enhanced Public-Source Due Diligence

Indicative fee: US$5,000–US$10,000

Specialist boundary: Procurement law, engineering acceptance and regulated compliance determinations may require specialists.

Situation: A bidder promises capacity, staff, facilities and delivery performance.

Evidence question: Procurement needs the material capability claims independently checked.

What Aperture would test: Test supplier identity, capability, ownership, track record, bid representations, conflicts, certifications and material delivery dependencies.

Likely route: Enhanced Public-Source Due Diligence

Indicative fee: US$5,000–US$10,000

Specialist boundary: Procurement law, engineering acceptance and regulated compliance determinations may require specialists.

Situation: A supplier cites prominent customers and successful deployments.

Evidence question: The buyer needs to establish what those references actually demonstrate.

What Aperture would test: Test supplier identity, capability, ownership, track record, bid representations, conflicts, certifications and material delivery dependencies.

Likely route: Enhanced Public-Source Due Diligence

Indicative fee: US$5,000–US$10,000

Specialist boundary: Procurement law, engineering acceptance and regulated compliance determinations may require specialists.

Situation: A specification appears unusually aligned with one supplier.

Evidence question: The decision requires a factual chronology and comparison before any legal or disciplinary conclusion.

What Aperture would test: Test supplier identity, capability, ownership, track record, bid representations, conflicts, certifications and material delivery dependencies.

Likely route: Enhanced Public-Source Due Diligence

Indicative fee: US$5,000–US$10,000

Specialist boundary: Procurement law, engineering acceptance and regulated compliance determinations may require specialists.

Situation: Competing bidders may share owners, directors or operational links.

Evidence question: Procurement needs an evidence-based relationship map.

What Aperture would test: Test supplier identity, capability, ownership, track record, bid representations, conflicts, certifications and material delivery dependencies.

Likely route: Enhanced Public-Source Due Diligence

Indicative fee: US$5,000–US$10,000

Specialist boundary: Procurement law, engineering acceptance and regulated compliance determinations may require specialists.

Situation: A vendor relies on certifications, licences or memberships.

Evidence question: The purchaser must verify validity, scope, issuing authority and relevance to the intended work.

What Aperture would test: Test supplier identity, capability, ownership, track record, bid representations, conflicts, certifications and material delivery dependencies.

Likely route: Enhanced Public-Source Due Diligence

Indicative fee: US$5,000–US$10,000

Specialist boundary: Procurement law, engineering acceptance and regulated compliance determinations may require specialists.

Situation: A challenge is made to the scoring process.

Evidence question: The organisation needs a traceable record of criteria, evidence, changes and treatment of competing bids.

What Aperture would test: Test supplier identity, capability, ownership, track record, bid representations, conflicts, certifications and material delivery dependencies.

Likely route: Enhanced Public-Source Due Diligence

Indicative fee: US$5,000–US$10,000

Specialist boundary: Procurement law, engineering acceptance and regulated compliance determinations may require specialists.

Situation: Emergency conditions are used to justify reduced competition.

Evidence question: Decision-makers need to test the dates, alternatives, dependencies and claimed urgency.

What Aperture would test: Test supplier identity, capability, ownership, track record, bid representations, conflicts, certifications and material delivery dependencies.

Likely route: Enhanced Public-Source Due Diligence

Indicative fee: US$5,000–US$10,000

Specialist boundary: Procurement law, engineering acceptance and regulated compliance determinations may require specialists.

Situation: A contract renewal is supported by selected performance indicators.

Evidence question: The buyer needs the full evidence record, exceptions and unresolved service issues considered.

What Aperture would test: Test supplier identity, capability, ownership, track record, bid representations, conflicts, certifications and material delivery dependencies.

Likely route: Enhanced Public-Source Due Diligence

Indicative fee: US$5,000–US$10,000

Specialist boundary: Procurement law, engineering acceptance and regulated compliance determinations may require specialists.

Situation: Counsel receives thousands of pages containing competing factual claims.

Evidence question: The record needs chronology, provenance, contradiction and gap control before legal strategy is finalised.

What Aperture would test: Build a source-traceable factual record, test chronology and competing accounts, identify missing evidence and preserve the boundary between fact and legal conclusion.

Likely route: Claims & Evidence Audit

Indicative fee: US$3,000–US$7,500

Specialist boundary: Aperture provides factual research support, not legal advice, representation or privilege determinations.

Situation: A company considers expensive litigation based on an internal narrative.

Evidence question: The factual propositions need independent testing before legal advice and cost are committed.

What Aperture would test: Build a source-traceable factual record, test chronology and competing accounts, identify missing evidence and preserve the boundary between fact and legal conclusion.

Likely route: Claims & Evidence Audit

Indicative fee: US$3,000–US$7,500

Specialist boundary: Aperture provides factual research support, not legal advice, representation or privilege determinations.

Situation: A dispute turns on what was represented, delivered, changed and known at different times.

Evidence question: The documentary record must be reconstructed for counsel.

What Aperture would test: Build a source-traceable factual record, test chronology and competing accounts, identify missing evidence and preserve the boundary between fact and legal conclusion.

Likely route: Claims & Evidence Audit

Indicative fee: US$3,000–US$7,500

Specialist boundary: Aperture provides factual research support, not legal advice, representation or privilege determinations.

Situation: Several accounts of the same event conflict.

Evidence question: A structured comparison identifies agreement, contradiction, timing and external corroboration without making legal credibility findings.

What Aperture would test: Build a source-traceable factual record, test chronology and competing accounts, identify missing evidence and preserve the boundary between fact and legal conclusion.

Likely route: Claims & Evidence Audit

Indicative fee: US$3,000–US$7,500

Specialist boundary: Aperture provides factual research support, not legal advice, representation or privilege determinations.

Situation: A party relies on an expert report.

Evidence question: The cited factual record, calculations and source relationships can be tested while specialist opinion remains with the expert.

What Aperture would test: Build a source-traceable factual record, test chronology and competing accounts, identify missing evidence and preserve the boundary between fact and legal conclusion.

Likely route: Claims & Evidence Audit

Indicative fee: US$3,000–US$7,500

Specialist boundary: Aperture provides factual research support, not legal advice, representation or privilege determinations.

Situation: A large disclosure set makes material evidence difficult to locate.

Evidence question: The client needs a proposition-led map of relevant records, dates and gaps.

What Aperture would test: Build a source-traceable factual record, test chronology and competing accounts, identify missing evidence and preserve the boundary between fact and legal conclusion.

Likely route: Claims & Evidence Audit

Indicative fee: US$3,000–US$7,500

Specialist boundary: Aperture provides factual research support, not legal advice, representation or privilege determinations.

Situation: Parties are considering settlement but disagree on core facts.

Evidence question: A neutral evidence record identifies what is established and what remains contested.

What Aperture would test: Build a source-traceable factual record, test chronology and competing accounts, identify missing evidence and preserve the boundary between fact and legal conclusion.

Likely route: Claims & Evidence Audit

Indicative fee: US$3,000–US$7,500

Specialist boundary: Aperture provides factual research support, not legal advice, representation or privilege determinations.

Situation: An organisation must respond to serious factual allegations.

Evidence question: The underlying record needs disciplined assembly before qualified counsel frames the legal response.

What Aperture would test: Build a source-traceable factual record, test chronology and competing accounts, identify missing evidence and preserve the boundary between fact and legal conclusion.

Likely route: Claims & Evidence Audit

Indicative fee: US$3,000–US$7,500

Specialist boundary: Aperture provides factual research support, not legal advice, representation or privilege determinations.

Situation: Events, records and entities span several jurisdictions.

Evidence question: Counsel needs one coherent factual chronology with jurisdiction-specific gaps clearly marked.

What Aperture would test: Build a source-traceable factual record, test chronology and competing accounts, identify missing evidence and preserve the boundary between fact and legal conclusion.

Likely route: Claims & Evidence Audit

Indicative fee: US$3,000–US$7,500

Specialist boundary: Aperture provides factual research support, not legal advice, representation or privilege determinations.

Situation: A litigation funder or claimant needs to know whether the factual record justifies deeper legal and expert assessment before substantial expenditure.

Evidence question: What does the available evidence responsibly support before this decision is made?

What Aperture would test: Build a source-traceable factual record, test chronology and competing accounts, identify missing evidence and preserve the boundary between fact and legal conclusion.

Likely route: Claims & Evidence Audit

Indicative fee: US$3,000–US$7,500

Specialist boundary: Aperture provides factual research support, not legal advice, representation or privilege determinations.

Situation: A business is told that new regulation will make its operating model impossible.

Evidence question: Authoritative sources, dates, scope and factual dependencies need verification before legal interpretation.

What Aperture would test: Test the factual basis of the regulatory or compliance claim, controlling records, dates, jurisdictions, contradictions and unresolved specialist questions.

Likely route: Reality Verification Assessment

Indicative fee: US$2,500–US$5,500

Specialist boundary: Legal interpretation, sanctions advice and regulated compliance decisions remain with qualified counsel or compliance specialists.

Situation: A transaction involves entities across jurisdictions with possible sanctions exposure.

Evidence question: Ownership, control, relationships and current authoritative listings require careful factual review with counsel where needed.

What Aperture would test: Test the factual basis of the regulatory or compliance claim, controlling records, dates, jurisdictions, contradictions and unresolved specialist questions.

Likely route: Reality Verification Assessment

Indicative fee: US$2,500–US$5,500

Specialist boundary: Legal interpretation, sanctions advice and regulated compliance decisions remain with qualified counsel or compliance specialists.

Situation: Management describes its programme as effective and mature.

Evidence question: The governing body needs evidence that documented controls operate in practice.

What Aperture would test: Test the factual basis of the regulatory or compliance claim, controlling records, dates, jurisdictions, contradictions and unresolved specialist questions.

Likely route: Reality Verification Assessment

Indicative fee: US$2,500–US$5,500

Specialist boundary: Legal interpretation, sanctions advice and regulated compliance decisions remain with qualified counsel or compliance specialists.

Situation: A business relationship depends on a licence, registration or authorisation.

Evidence question: The client needs to verify its existence, current status, scope and issuing authority.

What Aperture would test: Test the factual basis of the regulatory or compliance claim, controlling records, dates, jurisdictions, contradictions and unresolved specialist questions.

Likely route: Reality Verification Assessment

Indicative fee: US$2,500–US$5,500

Specialist boundary: Legal interpretation, sanctions advice and regulated compliance decisions remain with qualified counsel or compliance specialists.

Situation: A project model assumes approval will be obtained.

Evidence question: Decision-makers need the current procedural record, dependencies, precedent and unresolved matters separated from prediction.

What Aperture would test: Test the factual basis of the regulatory or compliance claim, controlling records, dates, jurisdictions, contradictions and unresolved specialist questions.

Likely route: Reality Verification Assessment

Indicative fee: US$2,500–US$5,500

Specialist boundary: Legal interpretation, sanctions advice and regulated compliance decisions remain with qualified counsel or compliance specialists.

Situation: A proposed transaction depends on factual assumptions and a particular tax treatment.

Evidence question: Aperture tests the factual inputs and source record for qualified tax counsel, without giving tax advice.

What Aperture would test: Test the factual basis of the regulatory or compliance claim, controlling records, dates, jurisdictions, contradictions and unresolved specialist questions.

Likely route: Reality Verification Assessment

Indicative fee: US$2,500–US$5,500

Specialist boundary: Legal interpretation, sanctions advice and regulated compliance decisions remain with qualified counsel or compliance specialists.

Situation: A compliance team receives incomplete or conflicting ownership information.

Evidence question: The accessible evidence must be mapped and material unknowns made explicit.

What Aperture would test: Test the factual basis of the regulatory or compliance claim, controlling records, dates, jurisdictions, contradictions and unresolved specialist questions.

Likely route: Reality Verification Assessment

Indicative fee: US$2,500–US$5,500

Specialist boundary: Legal interpretation, sanctions advice and regulated compliance decisions remain with qualified counsel or compliance specialists.

Situation: An organisation has strong written policies but uncertain implementation.

Evidence question: Independent review tests records of operation, exceptions, ownership and escalation.

What Aperture would test: Test the factual basis of the regulatory or compliance claim, controlling records, dates, jurisdictions, contradictions and unresolved specialist questions.

Likely route: Reality Verification Assessment

Indicative fee: US$2,500–US$5,500

Specialist boundary: Legal interpretation, sanctions advice and regulated compliance decisions remain with qualified counsel or compliance specialists.

Situation: A company needs an ongoing factual view of entities, ownership links, jurisdictions and changing public restrictions.

Evidence question: Legal conclusions and screening decisions remain with authorised specialists.

What Aperture would test: Test the factual basis of the regulatory or compliance claim, controlling records, dates, jurisdictions, contradictions and unresolved specialist questions.

Likely route: Reality Verification Assessment

Indicative fee: US$2,500–US$5,500

Specialist boundary: Legal interpretation, sanctions advice and regulated compliance decisions remain with qualified counsel or compliance specialists.

Situation: An automated or third-party alert may affect a customer or transaction.

Evidence question: The responsible owner needs the underlying evidence tested before imposing a serious consequence.

What Aperture would test: Test the factual basis of the regulatory or compliance claim, controlling records, dates, jurisdictions, contradictions and unresolved specialist questions.

Likely route: Reality Verification Assessment

Indicative fee: US$2,500–US$5,500

Specialist boundary: Legal interpretation, sanctions advice and regulated compliance decisions remain with qualified counsel or compliance specialists.

Situation: Unusual expenses or reimbursements raise concern.

Evidence question: The organisation needs the records, relationships, chronology and alternative explanations examined before drawing conclusions.

What Aperture would test: Reconstruct the material record, test allegations and explanations, map entities and transactions, and distinguish established facts from suspicion or inference.

Likely route: Investigative Research Dossier

Indicative fee: US$8,000–US$16,000

Specialist boundary: Criminal investigation, forensic accounting, insurance adjustment and legal determinations remain with authorised specialists.

Situation: A senior person’s qualifications or memberships may be misstated.

Evidence question: Authoritative and institutional sources need verification before an appointment or response.

What Aperture would test: Reconstruct the material record, test allegations and explanations, map entities and transactions, and distinguish established facts from suspicion or inference.

Likely route: Investigative Research Dossier

Indicative fee: US$8,000–US$16,000

Specialist boundary: Criminal investigation, forensic accounting, insurance adjustment and legal determinations remain with authorised specialists.

Situation: A person or company presents a successful history that conflicts with accessible records.

Evidence question: The decision requires a documented comparison of claims and evidence.

What Aperture would test: Reconstruct the material record, test allegations and explanations, map entities and transactions, and distinguish established facts from suspicion or inference.

Likely route: Investigative Research Dossier

Indicative fee: US$8,000–US$16,000

Specialist boundary: Criminal investigation, forensic accounting, insurance adjustment and legal determinations remain with authorised specialists.

Situation: A decision-maker may have an undisclosed interest.

Evidence question: The available corporate, professional and documentary record needs proportionate mapping.

What Aperture would test: Reconstruct the material record, test allegations and explanations, map entities and transactions, and distinguish established facts from suspicion or inference.

Likely route: Investigative Research Dossier

Indicative fee: US$8,000–US$16,000

Specialist boundary: Criminal investigation, forensic accounting, insurance adjustment and legal determinations remain with authorised specialists.

Situation: Payments appear to involve duplicate, connected or potentially fictitious suppliers.

Evidence question: The factual entity and relationship evidence needs controlled review.

What Aperture would test: Reconstruct the material record, test allegations and explanations, map entities and transactions, and distinguish established facts from suspicion or inference.

Likely route: Investigative Research Dossier

Indicative fee: US$8,000–US$16,000

Specialist boundary: Criminal investigation, forensic accounting, insurance adjustment and legal determinations remain with authorised specialists.

Situation: Serious allegations concern fabrication, falsification or source misuse.

Evidence question: The institution needs the evidence record structured while formal findings remain with authorised processes.

What Aperture would test: Reconstruct the material record, test allegations and explanations, map entities and transactions, and distinguish established facts from suspicion or inference.

Likely route: Investigative Research Dossier

Indicative fee: US$8,000–US$16,000

Specialist boundary: Criminal investigation, forensic accounting, insurance adjustment and legal determinations remain with authorised specialists.

Situation: An internal investigation report may omit contrary evidence or overstate conclusions.

Evidence question: An independent audit tests source support, reasoning and visible limitations.

What Aperture would test: Reconstruct the material record, test allegations and explanations, map entities and transactions, and distinguish established facts from suspicion or inference.

Likely route: Investigative Research Dossier

Indicative fee: US$8,000–US$16,000

Specialist boundary: Criminal investigation, forensic accounting, insurance adjustment and legal determinations remain with authorised specialists.

Situation: A whistleblower presents numerous claims of differing strength.

Evidence question: The organisation needs material propositions prioritised without exposing the source unnecessarily.

What Aperture would test: Reconstruct the material record, test allegations and explanations, map entities and transactions, and distinguish established facts from suspicion or inference.

Likely route: Investigative Research Dossier

Indicative fee: US$8,000–US$16,000

Specialist boundary: Criminal investigation, forensic accounting, insurance adjustment and legal determinations remain with authorised specialists.

Situation: A public allegation may affect leadership or organisational decisions.

Evidence question: The record must distinguish substantiated fact, repetition, inference and unresolved claim.

What Aperture would test: Reconstruct the material record, test allegations and explanations, map entities and transactions, and distinguish established facts from suspicion or inference.

Likely route: Investigative Research Dossier

Indicative fee: US$8,000–US$16,000

Specialist boundary: Criminal investigation, forensic accounting, insurance adjustment and legal determinations remain with authorised specialists.

Situation: A major claim depends on disputed events, dates, documents, loss assertions and expert material.

Evidence question: The factual record needs independent structuring while coverage and quantum remain with authorised specialists.

What Aperture would test: Reconstruct the material record, test allegations and explanations, map entities and transactions, and distinguish established facts from suspicion or inference.

Likely route: Investigative Research Dossier

Indicative fee: US$8,000–US$16,000

Specialist boundary: Criminal investigation, forensic accounting, insurance adjustment and legal determinations remain with authorised specialists.

Situation: Management, vendors and external parties provide conflicting accounts after an incident.

Evidence question: A neutral chronology tests what the available records actually establish.

What Aperture would test: Test provenance, timestamps, source integrity, competing versions, manipulation indicators and the factual propositions the digital material is being used to support.

Likely route: Claims & Evidence Audit

Indicative fee: US$3,000–US$7,500

Specialist boundary: Digital forensics, incident response, cybersecurity certification and legal determinations require qualified specialists.

Situation: A provider makes strong security, resilience and compliance claims.

Evidence question: The client needs marketing statements separated from verifiable certifications, testing and limitations.

What Aperture would test: Test provenance, timestamps, source integrity, competing versions, manipulation indicators and the factual propositions the digital material is being used to support.

Likely route: Claims & Evidence Audit

Indicative fee: US$3,000–US$7,500

Specialist boundary: Digital forensics, incident response, cybersecurity certification and legal determinations require qualified specialists.

Situation: A consequential image, audio recording or video may have been manipulated or generated.

Evidence question: Provenance, context and available technical indicators require review, with specialist escalation where necessary.

What Aperture would test: Test provenance, timestamps, source integrity, competing versions, manipulation indicators and the factual propositions the digital material is being used to support.

Likely route: Claims & Evidence Audit

Indicative fee: US$3,000–US$7,500

Specialist boundary: Digital forensics, incident response, cybersecurity certification and legal determinations require qualified specialists.

Situation: An audio recording may be cloned, edited or misattributed.

Evidence question: The client needs a controlled evidence record before treating it as genuine.

What Aperture would test: Test provenance, timestamps, source integrity, competing versions, manipulation indicators and the factual propositions the digital material is being used to support.

Likely route: Claims & Evidence Audit

Indicative fee: US$3,000–US$7,500

Specialist boundary: Digital forensics, incident response, cybersecurity certification and legal determinations require qualified specialists.

Situation: A widely shared image is being used as proof.

Evidence question: Source history, earliest appearance, metadata, context and contradictory material need examination.

What Aperture would test: Test provenance, timestamps, source integrity, competing versions, manipulation indicators and the factual propositions the digital material is being used to support.

Likely route: Claims & Evidence Audit

Indicative fee: US$3,000–US$7,500

Specialist boundary: Digital forensics, incident response, cybersecurity certification and legal determinations require qualified specialists.

Situation: A document’s origin or alteration history is disputed.

Evidence question: The accessible file, transmission and contextual evidence must be preserved and assessed within forensic boundaries.

What Aperture would test: Test provenance, timestamps, source integrity, competing versions, manipulation indicators and the factual propositions the digital material is being used to support.

Likely route: Claims & Evidence Audit

Indicative fee: US$3,000–US$7,500

Specialist boundary: Digital forensics, incident response, cybersecurity certification and legal determinations require qualified specialists.

Situation: An account is claimed to belong to a particular person or organisation.

Evidence question: The client needs lawful evidence assessed without covert access or unsupported identification.

What Aperture would test: Test provenance, timestamps, source integrity, competing versions, manipulation indicators and the factual propositions the digital material is being used to support.

Likely route: Claims & Evidence Audit

Indicative fee: US$3,000–US$7,500

Specialist boundary: Digital forensics, incident response, cybersecurity certification and legal determinations require qualified specialists.

Situation: Early reports state that a breach affects a particular number of records or people.

Evidence question: The organisation needs the basis, changing estimates and uncertainty made explicit.

What Aperture would test: Test provenance, timestamps, source integrity, competing versions, manipulation indicators and the factual propositions the digital material is being used to support.

Likely route: Claims & Evidence Audit

Indicative fee: US$3,000–US$7,500

Specialist boundary: Digital forensics, incident response, cybersecurity certification and legal determinations require qualified specialists.

Situation: A vendor or internal team presents one explanation for a failure.

Evidence question: Independent review tests whether the documented evidence excludes credible alternatives.

What Aperture would test: Test provenance, timestamps, source integrity, competing versions, manipulation indicators and the factual propositions the digital material is being used to support.

Likely route: Claims & Evidence Audit

Indicative fee: US$3,000–US$7,500

Specialist boundary: Digital forensics, incident response, cybersecurity certification and legal determinations require qualified specialists.

Situation: A possible privacy incident produces uncertain scope and conflicting accounts.

Evidence question: The organisation needs a controlled chronology of systems, records, access and known facts for qualified legal and technical review.

What Aperture would test: Test provenance, timestamps, source integrity, competing versions, manipulation indicators and the factual propositions the digital material is being used to support.

Likely route: Claims & Evidence Audit

Indicative fee: US$3,000–US$7,500

Specialist boundary: Digital forensics, incident response, cybersecurity certification and legal determinations require qualified specialists.

Situation: A vendor promises speed, scale or reliability.

Evidence question: The buyer needs the testing conditions, customer evidence and relevance to the intended environment examined.

What Aperture would test: Test product and technology claims against specifications, demonstrations, independent records, operating evidence, known limits and contradictory information.

Likely route: Reality Verification Assessment

Indicative fee: US$2,500–US$5,500

Specialist boundary: Engineering, cybersecurity, intellectual-property and regulatory conclusions may require specialist review.

Situation: A supplier says its platform will integrate easily with existing systems.

Evidence question: The decision depends on documented dependencies, prior implementations and unresolved technical conditions.

What Aperture would test: Test product and technology claims against specifications, demonstrations, independent records, operating evidence, known limits and contradictory information.

Likely route: Reality Verification Assessment

Indicative fee: US$2,500–US$5,500

Specialist boundary: Engineering, cybersecurity, intellectual-property and regulatory conclusions may require specialist review.

Situation: A company says its product is production-ready.

Evidence question: Investors or customers need the available evidence of deployment, stability, users, limitations and technical debt tested.

What Aperture would test: Test product and technology claims against specifications, demonstrations, independent records, operating evidence, known limits and contradictory information.

Likely route: Reality Verification Assessment

Indicative fee: US$2,500–US$5,500

Specialist boundary: Engineering, cybersecurity, intellectual-property and regulatory conclusions may require specialist review.

Situation: A software company cites customer numbers, retention and usage.

Evidence question: The buyer or investor needs those claims reconciled with available records and definitions.

What Aperture would test: Test product and technology claims against specifications, demonstrations, independent records, operating evidence, known limits and contradictory information.

Likely route: Reality Verification Assessment

Indicative fee: US$2,500–US$5,500

Specialist boundary: Engineering, cybersecurity, intellectual-property and regulatory conclusions may require specialist review.

Situation: A platform is said to support major future growth.

Evidence question: The evidence supporting scale, load testing and operating assumptions needs independent challenge.

What Aperture would test: Test product and technology claims against specifications, demonstrations, independent records, operating evidence, known limits and contradictory information.

Likely route: Reality Verification Assessment

Indicative fee: US$2,500–US$5,500

Specialist boundary: Engineering, cybersecurity, intellectual-property and regulatory conclusions may require specialist review.

Situation: A buyer’s strategy depends on features promised for future release.

Evidence question: The decision requires a clear distinction between current capability, committed delivery and aspiration.

What Aperture would test: Test product and technology claims against specifications, demonstrations, independent records, operating evidence, known limits and contradictory information.

Likely route: Reality Verification Assessment

Indicative fee: US$2,500–US$5,500

Specialist boundary: Engineering, cybersecurity, intellectual-property and regulatory conclusions may require specialist review.

Situation: A company says it owns the core code, data or intellectual property.

Evidence question: The factual development and dependency record needs testing alongside legal review.

What Aperture would test: Test product and technology claims against specifications, demonstrations, independent records, operating evidence, known limits and contradictory information.

Likely route: Reality Verification Assessment

Indicative fee: US$2,500–US$5,500

Specialist boundary: Engineering, cybersecurity, intellectual-property and regulatory conclusions may require specialist review.

Situation: A technology provider says customer data is isolated, protected, retained or deleted in a defined way.

Evidence question: The buyer needs the factual process, architecture evidence and contractual representation reconciled.

What Aperture would test: Test product and technology claims against specifications, demonstrations, independent records, operating evidence, known limits and contradictory information.

Likely route: Reality Verification Assessment

Indicative fee: US$2,500–US$5,500

Specialist boundary: Engineering, cybersecurity, intellectual-property and regulatory conclusions may require specialist review.

Situation: Reports suggest that a consumer or technical product may present a safety problem.

Evidence question: The organisation needs the underlying incidents, tests, dates and contrary evidence structured for qualified assessment.

What Aperture would test: Test product and technology claims against specifications, demonstrations, independent records, operating evidence, known limits and contradictory information.

Likely route: Reality Verification Assessment

Indicative fee: US$2,500–US$5,500

Specialist boundary: Engineering, cybersecurity, intellectual-property and regulatory conclusions may require specialist review.

Situation: Several parties explain a system failure differently.

Evidence question: A chronology of changes, alerts, records and claims is required before technical specialists determine cause.

What Aperture would test: Test product and technology claims against specifications, demonstrations, independent records, operating evidence, known limits and contradictory information.

Likely route: Reality Verification Assessment

Indicative fee: US$2,500–US$5,500

Specialist boundary: Engineering, cybersecurity, intellectual-property and regulatory conclusions may require specialist review.

Situation: A commercial product or decision relies on published research.

Evidence question: The buyer needs to know whether the cited studies actually support the precise claim being made.

What Aperture would test: Test the technical proposition, underlying method, source data, calculations, assumptions, reproducibility, contrary evidence and specialist dependency.

Likely route: Reality Verification Assessment

Indicative fee: US$2,500–US$5,500

Specialist boundary: Engineering certification, laboratory work and safety-critical opinions remain with qualified specialists.

Situation: Investors receive an engineering report supporting a major project.

Evidence question: Source inputs, assumptions, dates, qualifications and specialist dependencies need structured review.

What Aperture would test: Test the technical proposition, underlying method, source data, calculations, assumptions, reproducibility, contrary evidence and specialist dependency.

Likely route: Reality Verification Assessment

Indicative fee: US$2,500–US$5,500

Specialist boundary: Engineering certification, laboratory work and safety-critical opinions remain with qualified specialists.

Situation: A supplier says a system will meet demanding performance and reliability requirements.

Evidence question: The purchaser needs the evidence basis tested before commitment.

What Aperture would test: Test the technical proposition, underlying method, source data, calculations, assumptions, reproducibility, contrary evidence and specialist dependency.

Likely route: Reality Verification Assessment

Indicative fee: US$2,500–US$5,500

Specialist boundary: Engineering certification, laboratory work and safety-critical opinions remain with qualified specialists.

Situation: Several specialists offer different explanations for a failure.

Evidence question: Aperture can organise propositions, evidence and contradictions while technical judgement remains with qualified experts.

What Aperture would test: Test the technical proposition, underlying method, source data, calculations, assumptions, reproducibility, contrary evidence and specialist dependency.

Likely route: Reality Verification Assessment

Indicative fee: US$2,500–US$5,500

Specialist boundary: Engineering certification, laboratory work and safety-critical opinions remain with qualified specialists.

Situation: A decision relies on a laboratory result whose context or chain of interpretation is disputed.

Evidence question: The record needs source, method, date and limitation control.

What Aperture would test: Test the technical proposition, underlying method, source data, calculations, assumptions, reproducibility, contrary evidence and specialist dependency.

Likely route: Reality Verification Assessment

Indicative fee: US$2,500–US$5,500

Specialist boundary: Engineering certification, laboratory work and safety-critical opinions remain with qualified specialists.

Situation: A prominent result cannot easily be reproduced.

Evidence question: The client needs the original claim, methods, replication evidence and unresolved differences mapped.

What Aperture would test: Test the technical proposition, underlying method, source data, calculations, assumptions, reproducibility, contrary evidence and specialist dependency.

Likely route: Reality Verification Assessment

Indicative fee: US$2,500–US$5,500

Specialist boundary: Engineering certification, laboratory work and safety-critical opinions remain with qualified specialists.

Situation: A product is described as meeting a recognised standard.

Evidence question: The exact edition, scope, testing body and certified components need verification.

What Aperture would test: Test the technical proposition, underlying method, source data, calculations, assumptions, reproducibility, contrary evidence and specialist dependency.

Likely route: Reality Verification Assessment

Indicative fee: US$2,500–US$5,500

Specialist boundary: Engineering certification, laboratory work and safety-critical opinions remain with qualified specialists.

Situation: A technical pilot succeeded under controlled conditions.

Evidence question: Management needs to know whether the evidence supports full-scale deployment.

What Aperture would test: Test the technical proposition, underlying method, source data, calculations, assumptions, reproducibility, contrary evidence and specialist dependency.

Likely route: Reality Verification Assessment

Indicative fee: US$2,500–US$5,500

Specialist boundary: Engineering certification, laboratory work and safety-critical opinions remain with qualified specialists.

Situation: A party invokes “the science” to support a precise proposition.

Evidence question: The relevant evidence, degree of agreement and material uncertainty need careful separation.

What Aperture would test: Test the technical proposition, underlying method, source data, calculations, assumptions, reproducibility, contrary evidence and specialist dependency.

Likely route: Reality Verification Assessment

Indicative fee: US$2,500–US$5,500

Specialist boundary: Engineering certification, laboratory work and safety-critical opinions remain with qualified specialists.

Situation: Specialists produce large volumes of technical material.

Evidence question: Decision-makers need a clear map of which findings affect the commercial decision and where gaps remain.

What Aperture would test: Test the technical proposition, underlying method, source data, calculations, assumptions, reproducibility, contrary evidence and specialist dependency.

Likely route: Reality Verification Assessment

Indicative fee: US$2,500–US$5,500

Specialist boundary: Engineering certification, laboratory work and safety-critical opinions remain with qualified specialists.

Situation: A consequential decision depends on conflicting medical information.

Evidence question: Aperture can organise and verify sources while diagnosis and clinical judgement remain with qualified practitioners.

What Aperture would test: Test whether the cited clinical or scientific record supports the precise claim, population, outcome, limitation and intended use.

Likely route: Claims & Evidence Audit

Indicative fee: US$3,000–US$7,500

Specialist boundary: Aperture does not diagnose, treat or replace medical, clinical, laboratory or regulatory professionals.

Situation: A product promises a health benefit.

Evidence question: The client needs to know whether the cited studies support the exact population, outcome and claim presented.

What Aperture would test: Test whether the cited clinical or scientific record supports the precise claim, population, outcome, limitation and intended use.

Likely route: Claims & Evidence Audit

Indicative fee: US$3,000–US$7,500

Specialist boundary: Aperture does not diagnose, treat or replace medical, clinical, laboratory or regulatory professionals.

Situation: A company relies on a favourable trial headline.

Evidence question: The underlying endpoints, sample, comparison, limitations and regulatory status need accurate presentation.

What Aperture would test: Test whether the cited clinical or scientific record supports the precise claim, population, outcome, limitation and intended use.

Likely route: Claims & Evidence Audit

Indicative fee: US$3,000–US$7,500

Specialist boundary: Aperture does not diagnose, treat or replace medical, clinical, laboratory or regulatory professionals.

Situation: A manufacturer presents strong performance figures.

Evidence question: Buyers or investors need the evidence context and specialist-validation needs clearly identified.

What Aperture would test: Test whether the cited clinical or scientific record supports the precise claim, population, outcome, limitation and intended use.

Likely route: Claims & Evidence Audit

Indicative fee: US$3,000–US$7,500

Specialist boundary: Aperture does not diagnose, treat or replace medical, clinical, laboratory or regulatory professionals.

Situation: An investment thesis depends on scientific progress and development milestones.

Evidence question: The evidence record must separate confirmed achievement, preliminary result and forecast.

What Aperture would test: Test whether the cited clinical or scientific record supports the precise claim, population, outcome, limitation and intended use.

Likely route: Claims & Evidence Audit

Indicative fee: US$3,000–US$7,500

Specialist boundary: Aperture does not diagnose, treat or replace medical, clinical, laboratory or regulatory professionals.

Situation: A policy or organisational decision relies on a widely repeated health statistic.

Evidence question: The original source, definition, population and current relevance need verification.

What Aperture would test: Test whether the cited clinical or scientific record supports the precise claim, population, outcome, limitation and intended use.

Likely route: Claims & Evidence Audit

Indicative fee: US$3,000–US$7,500

Specialist boundary: Aperture does not diagnose, treat or replace medical, clinical, laboratory or regulatory professionals.

Situation: A vendor says its service improves outcomes or reduces costs.

Evidence question: The purchaser needs the causal basis, measurement method and comparison evidence examined.

What Aperture would test: Test whether the cited clinical or scientific record supports the precise claim, population, outcome, limitation and intended use.

Likely route: Claims & Evidence Audit

Indicative fee: US$3,000–US$7,500

Specialist boundary: Aperture does not diagnose, treat or replace medical, clinical, laboratory or regulatory professionals.

Situation: A company presents academic findings as proof of commercial effectiveness.

Evidence question: The decision requires testing whether the translation from research setting to product claim is justified.

What Aperture would test: Test whether the cited clinical or scientific record supports the precise claim, population, outcome, limitation and intended use.

Likely route: Claims & Evidence Audit

Indicative fee: US$3,000–US$7,500

Specialist boundary: Aperture does not diagnose, treat or replace medical, clinical, laboratory or regulatory professionals.

Situation: Records from several providers appear inconsistent.

Evidence question: Aperture can structure dates, documents and propositions for qualified medical or legal review.

What Aperture would test: Test whether the cited clinical or scientific record supports the precise claim, population, outcome, limitation and intended use.

Likely route: Claims & Evidence Audit

Indicative fee: US$3,000–US$7,500

Specialist boundary: Aperture does not diagnose, treat or replace medical, clinical, laboratory or regulatory professionals.

Situation: A company describes its regulatory pathway as straightforward.

Evidence question: The current factual record, milestones, dependencies and uncertainty need verification before expert advice.

What Aperture would test: Test whether the cited clinical or scientific record supports the precise claim, population, outcome, limitation and intended use.

Likely route: Claims & Evidence Audit

Indicative fee: US$3,000–US$7,500

Specialist boundary: Aperture does not diagnose, treat or replace medical, clinical, laboratory or regulatory professionals.

Situation: An institution relies on published research for an important decision.

Evidence question: The key proposition, source quality and contrary evidence need independent testing.

What Aperture would test: Trace claims and citations, test source support, methods, provenance, contradictions, research integrity and the limits of the available record.

Likely route: Claims & Evidence Audit

Indicative fee: US$3,000–US$7,500

Specialist boundary: Academic discipline, institutional procedure and specialist methodology review remain with the authorised bodies and qualified experts.

Situation: A researcher has used AI to find, summarise or cite sources.

Evidence question: The final work needs material claims and citations checked before reliance or publication.

What Aperture would test: Trace claims and citations, test source support, methods, provenance, contradictions, research integrity and the limits of the available record.

Likely route: Claims & Evidence Audit

Indicative fee: US$3,000–US$7,500

Specialist boundary: Academic discipline, institutional procedure and specialist methodology review remain with the authorised bodies and qualified experts.

Situation: A widely repeated academic statement traces back to a source that does not support it.

Evidence question: The citation chain needs reconstruction to the strongest available evidence.

What Aperture would test: Trace claims and citations, test source support, methods, provenance, contradictions, research integrity and the limits of the available record.

Likely route: Claims & Evidence Audit

Indicative fee: US$3,000–US$7,500

Specialist boundary: Academic discipline, institutional procedure and specialist methodology review remain with the authorised bodies and qualified experts.

Situation: A report or manuscript relies on work that has been retracted, corrected or seriously challenged.

Evidence question: The affected propositions and downstream citations need identification.

What Aperture would test: Trace claims and citations, test source support, methods, provenance, contradictions, research integrity and the limits of the available record.

Likely route: Claims & Evidence Audit

Indicative fee: US$3,000–US$7,500

Specialist boundary: Academic discipline, institutional procedure and specialist methodology review remain with the authorised bodies and qualified experts.

Situation: A public summary appears stronger than the underlying study.

Evidence question: The institution needs claims, findings, limitations and uncertainty accurately aligned.

What Aperture would test: Trace claims and citations, test source support, methods, provenance, contradictions, research integrity and the limits of the available record.

Likely route: Claims & Evidence Audit

Indicative fee: US$3,000–US$7,500

Specialist boundary: Academic discipline, institutional procedure and specialist methodology review remain with the authorised bodies and qualified experts.

Situation: A proposal relies on market, scientific or impact claims.

Evidence question: The supporting record needs testing before submission, while authorship and institutional rules remain protected.

What Aperture would test: Trace claims and citations, test source support, methods, provenance, contradictions, research integrity and the limits of the available record.

Likely route: Claims & Evidence Audit

Indicative fee: US$3,000–US$7,500

Specialist boundary: Academic discipline, institutional procedure and specialist methodology review remain with the authorised bodies and qualified experts.

Situation: A research team wants one independent attempt to find weak sources, contradictions, calculation errors and overstatement before publication.

Evidence question: What does the available evidence responsibly support before this decision is made?

What Aperture would test: Trace claims and citations, test source support, methods, provenance, contradictions, research integrity and the limits of the available record.

Likely route: Claims & Evidence Audit

Indicative fee: US$3,000–US$7,500

Specialist boundary: Academic discipline, institutional procedure and specialist methodology review remain with the authorised bodies and qualified experts.

Situation: A university or research body plans to publish strong outcome claims.

Evidence question: Definitions, data sources, calculations and limitations need verification.

What Aperture would test: Trace claims and citations, test source support, methods, provenance, contradictions, research integrity and the limits of the available record.

Likely route: Claims & Evidence Audit

Indicative fee: US$3,000–US$7,500

Specialist boundary: Academic discipline, institutional procedure and specialist methodology review remain with the authorised bodies and qualified experts.

Situation: A person’s stated institutional role, degree or research status affects a decision.

Evidence question: Authoritative public and supplied sources need proportionate verification.

What Aperture would test: Trace claims and citations, test source support, methods, provenance, contradictions, research integrity and the limits of the available record.

Likely route: Claims & Evidence Audit

Indicative fee: US$3,000–US$7,500

Specialist boundary: Academic discipline, institutional procedure and specialist methodology review remain with the authorised bodies and qualified experts.

Situation: Parties disagree about what data, methods or findings were available at a particular time.

Evidence question: A controlled chronology supports the authorised academic-integrity process.

What Aperture would test: Trace claims and citations, test source support, methods, provenance, contradictions, research integrity and the limits of the available record.

Likely route: Claims & Evidence Audit

Indicative fee: US$3,000–US$7,500

Specialist boundary: Academic discipline, institutional procedure and specialist methodology review remain with the authorised bodies and qualified experts.

Situation: A publisher prepares a consequential article.

Evidence question: Material claims, source independence, contradiction and right-of-reply evidence need disciplined review.

What Aperture would test: Test material claims, quotations, citations, chronology, source independence, contrary evidence and unresolved publication risk.

Likely route: Claims & Evidence Audit

Indicative fee: US$3,000–US$7,500

Specialist boundary: Editors, publishers and legal advisers retain publication, defamation and legal-risk decisions.

Situation: Producers build a documentary around disputed events.

Evidence question: The central propositions, interviews, archival material and gaps need a decision-ready evidence map.

What Aperture would test: Test material claims, quotations, citations, chronology, source independence, contrary evidence and unresolved publication risk.

Likely route: Claims & Evidence Audit

Indicative fee: US$3,000–US$7,500

Specialist boundary: Editors, publishers and legal advisers retain publication, defamation and legal-risk decisions.

Situation: A film team has compelling interviews but contested central claims.

Evidence question: Independent testing identifies what can responsibly be stated and what remains allegation.

What Aperture would test: Test material claims, quotations, citations, chronology, source independence, contrary evidence and unresolved publication risk.

Likely route: Claims & Evidence Audit

Indicative fee: US$3,000–US$7,500

Specialist boundary: Editors, publishers and legal advisers retain publication, defamation and legal-risk decisions.

Situation: A nonfiction manuscript contains consequential claims.

Evidence question: The author or publisher needs a proposition-led audit beyond ordinary copy-editing.

What Aperture would test: Test material claims, quotations, citations, chronology, source independence, contrary evidence and unresolved publication risk.

Likely route: Claims & Evidence Audit

Indicative fee: US$3,000–US$7,500

Specialist boundary: Editors, publishers and legal advisers retain publication, defamation and legal-risk decisions.

Situation: An episode relies on interviews, online records and leaked documents.

Evidence question: The production team needs source provenance and material contradictions tested before release.

What Aperture would test: Test material claims, quotations, citations, chronology, source independence, contrary evidence and unresolved publication risk.

Likely route: Claims & Evidence Audit

Indicative fee: US$3,000–US$7,500

Specialist boundary: Editors, publishers and legal advisers retain publication, defamation and legal-risk decisions.

Situation: An organisation plans to publish a strong factual announcement.

Evidence question: The underlying claim must withstand independent source and wording review.

What Aperture would test: Test material claims, quotations, citations, chronology, source independence, contrary evidence and unresolved publication risk.

Likely route: Claims & Evidence Audit

Indicative fee: US$3,000–US$7,500

Specialist boundary: Editors, publishers and legal advisers retain publication, defamation and legal-risk decisions.

Situation: A publication relies on a dataset and derived calculations.

Evidence question: Definitions, source provenance, transformations and material limitations need testing.

What Aperture would test: Test material claims, quotations, citations, chronology, source independence, contrary evidence and unresolved publication risk.

Likely route: Claims & Evidence Audit

Indicative fee: US$3,000–US$7,500

Specialist boundary: Editors, publishers and legal advisers retain publication, defamation and legal-risk decisions.

Situation: A major story depends on confidential accounts.

Evidence question: Public and documentary evidence needs to be tested without exposing protected sources.

What Aperture would test: Test material claims, quotations, citations, chronology, source independence, contrary evidence and unresolved publication risk.

Likely route: Claims & Evidence Audit

Indicative fee: US$3,000–US$7,500

Specialist boundary: Editors, publishers and legal advisers retain publication, defamation and legal-risk decisions.

Situation: New evidence challenges a published claim.

Evidence question: The publisher needs to know what changed, how material it is and which parts of the original record remain supported.

What Aperture would test: Test material claims, quotations, citations, chronology, source independence, contrary evidence and unresolved publication risk.

Likely route: Claims & Evidence Audit

Indicative fee: US$3,000–US$7,500

Specialist boundary: Editors, publishers and legal advisers retain publication, defamation and legal-risk decisions.

Situation: A claim has spread across multiple publications that cite one another.

Evidence question: The chain must be traced back to independent underlying evidence.

What Aperture would test: Test material claims, quotations, citations, chronology, source independence, contrary evidence and unresolved publication risk.

Likely route: Claims & Evidence Audit

Indicative fee: US$3,000–US$7,500

Specialist boundary: Editors, publishers and legal advisers retain publication, defamation and legal-risk decisions.

Situation: Serious allegations about an organisation spread rapidly online.

Evidence question: The response must be based on a controlled distinction between fact, claim, inference and unknown.

What Aperture would test: Test the allegation or response narrative against original sources, chronology, independent corroboration, contradictions and material gaps.

Likely route: Reality Verification Assessment

Indicative fee: US$2,500–US$5,500

Specialist boundary: Crisis communication and legal strategy remain with the authorised advisers and decision-makers.

Situation: A senior leader faces public accusations.

Evidence question: The organisation needs a disciplined evidence record before making governance or communication decisions.

What Aperture would test: Test the allegation or response narrative against original sources, chronology, independent corroboration, contradictions and material gaps.

Likely route: Reality Verification Assessment

Indicative fee: US$2,500–US$5,500

Specialist boundary: Crisis communication and legal strategy remain with the authorised advisers and decision-makers.

Situation: A claim has been repeated thousands of times.

Evidence question: The client needs to establish whether repetition is masking the absence of primary evidence.

What Aperture would test: Test the allegation or response narrative against original sources, chronology, independent corroboration, contradictions and material gaps.

Likely route: Reality Verification Assessment

Indicative fee: US$2,500–US$5,500

Specialist boundary: Crisis communication and legal strategy remain with the authorised advisers and decision-makers.

Situation: Coordinated criticism appears across platforms.

Evidence question: The organisation needs the claims, sources, relationships and factual merits separated without assuming motive.

What Aperture would test: Test the allegation or response narrative against original sources, chronology, independent corroboration, contradictions and material gaps.

Likely route: Reality Verification Assessment

Indicative fee: US$2,500–US$5,500

Specialist boundary: Crisis communication and legal strategy remain with the authorised advisers and decision-makers.

Situation: A competitor or commentator publishes a comparison that may use incompatible measures.

Evidence question: The client needs the underlying data and definitions tested.

What Aperture would test: Test the allegation or response narrative against original sources, chronology, independent corroboration, contradictions and material gaps.

Likely route: Reality Verification Assessment

Indicative fee: US$2,500–US$5,500

Specialist boundary: Crisis communication and legal strategy remain with the authorised advisers and decision-makers.

Situation: An old allegation returns during a transaction or appointment.

Evidence question: Decision-makers need the original record, later developments and unresolved matters reconstructed.

What Aperture would test: Test the allegation or response narrative against original sources, chronology, independent corroboration, contradictions and material gaps.

Likely route: Reality Verification Assessment

Indicative fee: US$2,500–US$5,500

Specialist boundary: Crisis communication and legal strategy remain with the authorised advisers and decision-makers.

Situation: Pressure is building for an immediate statement while facts remain uncertain.

Evidence question: A rapid evidence brief identifies what can responsibly be said now.

What Aperture would test: Test the allegation or response narrative against original sources, chronology, independent corroboration, contradictions and material gaps.

Likely route: Reality Verification Assessment

Indicative fee: US$2,500–US$5,500

Specialist boundary: Crisis communication and legal strategy remain with the authorised advisers and decision-makers.

Situation: A person or company is linked to another party through limited evidence.

Evidence question: The actual nature, timing and materiality of the relationship need testing.

What Aperture would test: Test the allegation or response narrative against original sources, chronology, independent corroboration, contradictions and material gaps.

Likely route: Reality Verification Assessment

Indicative fee: US$2,500–US$5,500

Specialist boundary: Crisis communication and legal strategy remain with the authorised advisers and decision-makers.

Situation: A cluster of reviews or complaints may affect a commercial decision.

Evidence question: The client needs timing, duplication, corroboration and alternative explanations assessed.

What Aperture would test: Test the allegation or response narrative against original sources, chronology, independent corroboration, contradictions and material gaps.

Likely route: Reality Verification Assessment

Indicative fee: US$2,500–US$5,500

Specialist boundary: Crisis communication and legal strategy remain with the authorised advisers and decision-makers.

Situation: The initial response is complete, but claims and evidence continue to change.

Evidence question: Defined monitoring updates what the organisation may responsibly rely on.

What Aperture would test: Test the allegation or response narrative against original sources, chronology, independent corroboration, contradictions and material gaps.

Likely route: Reality Verification Assessment

Indicative fee: US$2,500–US$5,500

Specialist boundary: Crisis communication and legal strategy remain with the authorised advisers and decision-makers.

Situation: A proposed policy is justified by statistics and research.

Evidence question: Decision-makers need the cited evidence, comparison choices and contrary material independently tested.

What Aperture would test: Test policy and programme claims against official records, implementation evidence, outcomes, dates, definitions and contrary evidence.

Likely route: Reality Verification Assessment

Indicative fee: US$2,500–US$5,500

Specialist boundary: Policy authority, legal interpretation and public-sector decision powers remain with the responsible institutions.

Situation: A company considers bidding for a major public-sector contract in an unfamiliar market.

Evidence question: The factual procurement, counterparty and operating context needs examination.

What Aperture would test: Test policy and programme claims against official records, implementation evidence, outcomes, dates, definitions and contrary evidence.

Likely route: Reality Verification Assessment

Indicative fee: US$2,500–US$5,500

Specialist boundary: Policy authority, legal interpretation and public-sector decision powers remain with the responsible institutions.

Situation: An agency reports strong programme results.

Evidence question: Definitions, baseline, measurement method and attribution need verification before reliance.

What Aperture would test: Test policy and programme claims against official records, implementation evidence, outcomes, dates, definitions and contrary evidence.

Likely route: Reality Verification Assessment

Indicative fee: US$2,500–US$5,500

Specialist boundary: Policy authority, legal interpretation and public-sector decision powers remain with the responsible institutions.

Situation: A consultation document makes claims about cost, demand or public benefit.

Evidence question: The source record and material assumptions need testing.

What Aperture would test: Test policy and programme claims against official records, implementation evidence, outcomes, dates, definitions and contrary evidence.

Likely route: Reality Verification Assessment

Indicative fee: US$2,500–US$5,500

Specialist boundary: Policy authority, legal interpretation and public-sector decision powers remain with the responsible institutions.

Situation: A local project is delayed and parties offer conflicting explanations.

Evidence question: A documentary chronology identifies approvals, changes, dependencies and gaps.

What Aperture would test: Test policy and programme claims against official records, implementation evidence, outcomes, dates, definitions and contrary evidence.

Likely route: Reality Verification Assessment

Indicative fee: US$2,500–US$5,500

Specialist boundary: Policy authority, legal interpretation and public-sector decision powers remain with the responsible institutions.

Situation: Bid relationships, specification choices or evaluation patterns raise concern.

Evidence question: The evidence must be mapped before legal, disciplinary or regulatory conclusions.

What Aperture would test: Test policy and programme claims against official records, implementation evidence, outcomes, dates, definitions and contrary evidence.

Likely route: Reality Verification Assessment

Indicative fee: US$2,500–US$5,500

Specialist boundary: Policy authority, legal interpretation and public-sector decision powers remain with the responsible institutions.

Situation: A government proposal cites success in another jurisdiction.

Evidence question: The client needs to know whether the comparison is genuinely relevant and current.

What Aperture would test: Test policy and programme claims against official records, implementation evidence, outcomes, dates, definitions and contrary evidence.

Likely route: Reality Verification Assessment

Indicative fee: US$2,500–US$5,500

Specialist boundary: Policy authority, legal interpretation and public-sector decision powers remain with the responsible institutions.

Situation: A major decision depends on a government statistic.

Evidence question: Definitions, revisions, collection method and applicability need verification.

What Aperture would test: Test policy and programme claims against official records, implementation evidence, outcomes, dates, definitions and contrary evidence.

Likely route: Reality Verification Assessment

Indicative fee: US$2,500–US$5,500

Specialist boundary: Policy authority, legal interpretation and public-sector decision powers remain with the responsible institutions.

Situation: A project is promoted through benefit, demand and risk-allocation claims.

Evidence question: The factual assumptions need transparent review before specialist advice.

What Aperture would test: Test policy and programme claims against official records, implementation evidence, outcomes, dates, definitions and contrary evidence.

Likely route: Reality Verification Assessment

Indicative fee: US$2,500–US$5,500

Specialist boundary: Policy authority, legal interpretation and public-sector decision powers remain with the responsible institutions.

Situation: A public announcement may affect investment or strategy.

Evidence question: The organisation needs to distinguish binding action, policy intention, proposal and political statement.

What Aperture would test: Test policy and programme claims against official records, implementation evidence, outcomes, dates, definitions and contrary evidence.

Likely route: Reality Verification Assessment

Indicative fee: US$2,500–US$5,500

Specialist boundary: Policy authority, legal interpretation and public-sector decision powers remain with the responsible institutions.

Situation: A company plans substantial investment in an unfamiliar jurisdiction.

Evidence question: It needs political, regulatory, commercial and operating claims tested before commitment.

What Aperture would test: Test the country, market and stakeholder proposition across reliable local and international sources, changed facts, dependencies and competing explanations.

Likely route: Investigative Research Dossier

Indicative fee: US$8,000–US$16,000

Specialist boundary: Security, sanctions, legal and country-specific advice may require qualified local or specialist input.

Situation: Management receives contradictory reporting during a fast-moving crisis.

Evidence question: A controlled brief separates confirmed developments, credible indicators, disputed claims and unknowns.

What Aperture would test: Test the country, market and stakeholder proposition across reliable local and international sources, changed facts, dependencies and competing explanations.

Likely route: Investigative Research Dossier

Indicative fee: US$8,000–US$16,000

Specialist boundary: Security, sanctions, legal and country-specific advice may require qualified local or specialist input.

Situation: Management believes a major competitor is preparing to enter its market.

Evidence question: The decision requires testing the signals, source independence, timing and credible alternatives.

What Aperture would test: Test the country, market and stakeholder proposition across reliable local and international sources, changed facts, dependencies and competing explanations.

Likely route: Investigative Research Dossier

Indicative fee: US$8,000–US$16,000

Specialist boundary: Security, sanctions, legal and country-specific advice may require qualified local or specialist input.

Situation: A proposed partner says it can navigate institutions and decision-makers.

Evidence question: The company needs lawful evidence of actual capability and relationships.

What Aperture would test: Test the country, market and stakeholder proposition across reliable local and international sources, changed facts, dependencies and competing explanations.

Likely route: Investigative Research Dossier

Indicative fee: US$8,000–US$16,000

Specialist boundary: Security, sanctions, legal and country-specific advice may require qualified local or specialist input.

Situation: A strategy relies on an attractive market-size estimate repeated across reports.

Evidence question: The original data, definitions, date, calculation and circular citations need testing.

What Aperture would test: Test the country, market and stakeholder proposition across reliable local and international sources, changed facts, dependencies and competing explanations.

Likely route: Investigative Research Dossier

Indicative fee: US$8,000–US$16,000

Specialist boundary: Security, sanctions, legal and country-specific advice may require qualified local or specialist input.

Situation: A project assumes a stable operating environment.

Evidence question: The decision requires evidence of relevant institutional, policy and conflict indicators, not a generic country rating.

What Aperture would test: Test the country, market and stakeholder proposition across reliable local and international sources, changed facts, dependencies and competing explanations.

Likely route: Investigative Research Dossier

Indicative fee: US$8,000–US$16,000

Specialist boundary: Security, sanctions, legal and country-specific advice may require qualified local or specialist input.

Situation: Management sees strong apparent demand in a foreign market.

Evidence question: The client needs demand evidence, competitor conditions, access barriers and material unknowns tested.

What Aperture would test: Test the country, market and stakeholder proposition across reliable local and international sources, changed facts, dependencies and competing explanations.

Likely route: Investigative Research Dossier

Indicative fee: US$8,000–US$16,000

Specialist boundary: Security, sanctions, legal and country-specific advice may require qualified local or specialist input.

Situation: A project relies on a government promise or public commitment.

Evidence question: Decision-makers need to distinguish political statement, budgeted programme, legal instrument and completed action.

What Aperture would test: Test the country, market and stakeholder proposition across reliable local and international sources, changed facts, dependencies and competing explanations.

Likely route: Investigative Research Dossier

Indicative fee: US$8,000–US$16,000

Specialist boundary: Security, sanctions, legal and country-specific advice may require qualified local or specialist input.

Situation: A critical supplier operates in a region affected by political tension.

Evidence question: The buyer needs evidence of ownership, location, dependencies and realistic alternatives.

What Aperture would test: Test the country, market and stakeholder proposition across reliable local and international sources, changed facts, dependencies and competing explanations.

Likely route: Investigative Research Dossier

Indicative fee: US$8,000–US$16,000

Specialist boundary: Security, sanctions, legal and country-specific advice may require qualified local or specialist input.

Situation: Management strongly supports entering a new country.

Evidence question: An independent challenge searches for assumptions and evidence capable of changing the entry decision.

What Aperture would test: Test the country, market and stakeholder proposition across reliable local and international sources, changed facts, dependencies and competing explanations.

Likely route: Investigative Research Dossier

Indicative fee: US$8,000–US$16,000

Specialist boundary: Security, sanctions, legal and country-specific advice may require qualified local or specialist input.

Situation: Contractors, designers and owners give competing explanations for delay.

Evidence question: The record needs chronology, approvals, changes, dependencies and missing documents structured.

What Aperture would test: Test project claims, milestones, entities, licences, capacity, costs, dependencies, public records and contradictions before further commitment.

Likely route: Investigative Research Dossier

Indicative fee: US$8,000–US$16,000

Specialist boundary: Engineering, quantity-surveying, environmental, safety and legal determinations remain with qualified specialists.

Situation: A major project relies on future traffic, usage or demand.

Evidence question: The forecast inputs, sources, comparisons and sensitivity need independent testing.

What Aperture would test: Test project claims, milestones, entities, licences, capacity, costs, dependencies, public records and contradictions before further commitment.

Likely route: Investigative Research Dossier

Indicative fee: US$8,000–US$16,000

Specialist boundary: Engineering, quantity-surveying, environmental, safety and legal determinations remain with qualified specialists.

Situation: A project depends on regulation, demand, price and political commitments.

Evidence question: Decision-makers need the material assumptions and evidence gaps made visible.

What Aperture would test: Test project claims, milestones, entities, licences, capacity, costs, dependencies, public records and contradictions before further commitment.

Likely route: Investigative Research Dossier

Indicative fee: US$8,000–US$16,000

Specialist boundary: Engineering, quantity-surveying, environmental, safety and legal determinations remain with qualified specialists.

Situation: A project sponsor reports that a technical milestone has been achieved.

Evidence question: The evidence must distinguish documented completion, partial completion and management assertion.

What Aperture would test: Test project claims, milestones, entities, licences, capacity, costs, dependencies, public records and contradictions before further commitment.

Likely route: Investigative Research Dossier

Indicative fee: US$8,000–US$16,000

Specialist boundary: Engineering, quantity-surveying, environmental, safety and legal determinations remain with qualified specialists.

Situation: Investors are told that approvals are progressing normally.

Evidence question: The current authoritative record, conditions, objections and outstanding steps need verification.

What Aperture would test: Test project claims, milestones, entities, licences, capacity, costs, dependencies, public records and contradictions before further commitment.

Likely route: Investigative Research Dossier

Indicative fee: US$8,000–US$16,000

Specialist boundary: Engineering, quantity-surveying, environmental, safety and legal determinations remain with qualified specialists.

Situation: A contractor claims experience delivering comparable projects.

Evidence question: The buyer needs project history, role, outcome and relevance tested.

What Aperture would test: Test project claims, milestones, entities, licences, capacity, costs, dependencies, public records and contradictions before further commitment.

Likely route: Investigative Research Dossier

Indicative fee: US$8,000–US$16,000

Specialist boundary: Engineering, quantity-surveying, environmental, safety and legal determinations remain with qualified specialists.

Situation: A project exceeds budget and several causes are offered.

Evidence question: The organisation needs a factual chronology before accepting allocation of cause or responsibility.

What Aperture would test: Test project claims, milestones, entities, licences, capacity, costs, dependencies, public records and contradictions before further commitment.

Likely route: Investigative Research Dossier

Indicative fee: US$8,000–US$16,000

Specialist boundary: Engineering, quantity-surveying, environmental, safety and legal determinations remain with qualified specialists.

Situation: A project promoter presents expected output and availability.

Evidence question: The factual basis, site assumptions and specialist dependencies need transparent review.

What Aperture would test: Test project claims, milestones, entities, licences, capacity, costs, dependencies, public records and contradictions before further commitment.

Likely route: Investigative Research Dossier

Indicative fee: US$8,000–US$16,000

Specialist boundary: Engineering, quantity-surveying, environmental, safety and legal determinations remain with qualified specialists.

Situation: An investor evaluates a telecommunications opportunity based on subscriber, infrastructure, spectrum and regulatory claims.

Evidence question: The material representations and specialist dependencies need testing.

What Aperture would test: Test project claims, milestones, entities, licences, capacity, costs, dependencies, public records and contradictions before further commitment.

Likely route: Investigative Research Dossier

Indicative fee: US$8,000–US$16,000

Specialist boundary: Engineering, quantity-surveying, environmental, safety and legal determinations remain with qualified specialists.

Situation: A consequential aviation event or investment produces technical evidence, official findings and competing claims.

Evidence question: Aperture structures the factual record while aviation specialists retain technical judgement.

What Aperture would test: Test project claims, milestones, entities, licences, capacity, costs, dependencies, public records and contradictions before further commitment.

Likely route: Investigative Research Dossier

Indicative fee: US$8,000–US$16,000

Specialist boundary: Engineering, quantity-surveying, environmental, safety and legal determinations remain with qualified specialists.

Situation: Investors assess a project involving ownership, licences, geology, infrastructure and political claims.

Evidence question: The accessible evidence must be integrated before specialist diligence.

What Aperture would test: Test ownership, rights, resource and production claims, source methods, official records, historical changes, contradictions and material unknowns.

Likely route: Investigative Research Dossier

Indicative fee: US$8,000–US$16,000

Specialist boundary: Reserve, environmental, agricultural, water-right and land-title opinions may require qualified specialists.

Situation: A promoter cites resource estimates as proof of value.

Evidence question: The exact classification, report status, date and specialist qualifications need accurate presentation.

What Aperture would test: Test ownership, rights, resource and production claims, source methods, official records, historical changes, contradictions and material unknowns.

Likely route: Investigative Research Dossier

Indicative fee: US$8,000–US$16,000

Specialist boundary: Reserve, environmental, agricultural, water-right and land-title opinions may require qualified specialists.

Situation: Returns depend on production, climate, water, land and market assumptions.

Evidence question: The investor needs the factual record and specialist dependencies tested.

What Aperture would test: Test ownership, rights, resource and production claims, source methods, official records, historical changes, contradictions and material unknowns.

Likely route: Investigative Research Dossier

Indicative fee: US$8,000–US$16,000

Specialist boundary: Reserve, environmental, agricultural, water-right and land-title opinions may require qualified specialists.

Situation: A project depends on water access or future supply.

Evidence question: Authorisations, infrastructure, historic availability and unresolved technical issues need verification.

What Aperture would test: Test ownership, rights, resource and production claims, source methods, official records, historical changes, contradictions and material unknowns.

Likely route: Investigative Research Dossier

Indicative fee: US$8,000–US$16,000

Specialist boundary: Reserve, environmental, agricultural, water-right and land-title opinions may require qualified specialists.

Situation: A proposed investment assumes particular land rights or permitted use.

Evidence question: The current documentary and public record needs mapping for qualified legal review.

What Aperture would test: Test ownership, rights, resource and production claims, source methods, official records, historical changes, contradictions and material unknowns.

Likely route: Investigative Research Dossier

Indicative fee: US$8,000–US$16,000

Specialist boundary: Reserve, environmental, agricultural, water-right and land-title opinions may require qualified specialists.

Situation: A project relies on a strong future commodity market.

Evidence question: The evidence behind demand, substitution, supply and price assumptions needs challenge.

What Aperture would test: Test ownership, rights, resource and production claims, source methods, official records, historical changes, contradictions and material unknowns.

Likely route: Investigative Research Dossier

Indicative fee: US$8,000–US$16,000

Specialist boundary: Reserve, environmental, agricultural, water-right and land-title opinions may require qualified specialists.

Situation: A manufacturer or distributor relies on nutritional, safety, sourcing or performance claims.

Evidence question: The cited evidence, definitions, certifications and specialist boundaries need testing.

What Aperture would test: Test ownership, rights, resource and production claims, source methods, official records, historical changes, contradictions and material unknowns.

Likely route: Investigative Research Dossier

Indicative fee: US$8,000–US$16,000

Specialist boundary: Reserve, environmental, agricultural, water-right and land-title opinions may require qualified specialists.

Situation: A project relies on a stated environmental baseline.

Evidence question: The source studies, dates, coverage and material limitations need structured review by appropriate specialists.

What Aperture would test: Test ownership, rights, resource and production claims, source methods, official records, historical changes, contradictions and material unknowns.

Likely route: Investigative Research Dossier

Indicative fee: US$8,000–US$16,000

Specialist boundary: Reserve, environmental, agricultural, water-right and land-title opinions may require qualified specialists.

Situation: A transaction depends on licences or permits.

Evidence question: The client needs current status, holder, scope, conditions and renewal information verified.

What Aperture would test: Test ownership, rights, resource and production claims, source methods, official records, historical changes, contradictions and material unknowns.

Likely route: Investigative Research Dossier

Indicative fee: US$8,000–US$16,000

Specialist boundary: Reserve, environmental, agricultural, water-right and land-title opinions may require qualified specialists.

Situation: A sponsor says affected communities support a project.

Evidence question: The evidence, consultation record, dissent and changing circumstances need proportionate examination.

What Aperture would test: Test ownership, rights, resource and production claims, source methods, official records, historical changes, contradictions and material unknowns.

Likely route: Investigative Research Dossier

Indicative fee: US$8,000–US$16,000

Specialist boundary: Reserve, environmental, agricultural, water-right and land-title opinions may require qualified specialists.

Situation: A manufacturer relies heavily on one overseas supplier.

Evidence question: The organisation needs ownership, location, alternatives, operational history and disruption exposure mapped.

What Aperture would test: Test supplier and product origin, chain-of-custody claims, trade records, certifications, dependencies, disruptions and contradictory evidence.

Likely route: Enhanced Public-Source Due Diligence

Indicative fee: US$5,000–US$10,000

Specialist boundary: Customs, sanctions, laboratory, certification and legal determinations remain with qualified specialists.

Situation: A buyer relies on claims about where a product comes from and how its supply chain is controlled.

Evidence question: The chain of records, intermediaries and material gaps needs verification.

What Aperture would test: Test supplier and product origin, chain-of-custody claims, trade records, certifications, dependencies, disruptions and contradictory evidence.

Likely route: Enhanced Public-Source Due Diligence

Indicative fee: US$5,000–US$10,000

Specialist boundary: Customs, sanctions, laboratory, certification and legal determinations remain with qualified specialists.

Situation: A supplier promises responsible sourcing.

Evidence question: The purchaser needs to establish what evidence supports the claim across relevant tiers.

What Aperture would test: Test supplier and product origin, chain-of-custody claims, trade records, certifications, dependencies, disruptions and contradictory evidence.

Likely route: Enhanced Public-Source Due Diligence

Indicative fee: US$5,000–US$10,000

Specialist boundary: Customs, sanctions, laboratory, certification and legal determinations remain with qualified specialists.

Situation: A dispute involves vessels, cargo, ownership structures and conflicting timelines.

Evidence question: Public, commercial and supplied records need coherent reconstruction.

What Aperture would test: Test supplier and product origin, chain-of-custody claims, trade records, certifications, dependencies, disruptions and contradictory evidence.

Likely route: Enhanced Public-Source Due Diligence

Indicative fee: US$5,000–US$10,000

Specialist boundary: Customs, sanctions, laboratory, certification and legal determinations remain with qualified specialists.

Situation: A provider promises capacity during a constrained period.

Evidence question: The buyer needs assets, routes, dependencies, subcontractors and prior performance tested.

What Aperture would test: Test supplier and product origin, chain-of-custody claims, trade records, certifications, dependencies, disruptions and contradictory evidence.

Likely route: Enhanced Public-Source Due Diligence

Indicative fee: US$5,000–US$10,000

Specialist boundary: Customs, sanctions, laboratory, certification and legal determinations remain with qualified specialists.

Situation: A planned shipment may be affected by changing restrictions.

Evidence question: The current factual product, entity, route and jurisdiction record needs preparation for specialist advice.

What Aperture would test: Test supplier and product origin, chain-of-custody claims, trade records, certifications, dependencies, disruptions and contradictory evidence.

Likely route: Enhanced Public-Source Due Diligence

Indicative fee: US$5,000–US$10,000

Specialist boundary: Customs, sanctions, laboratory, certification and legal determinations remain with qualified specialists.

Situation: A product launch depends on a scarce component.

Evidence question: Management needs supplier claims, lead times, alternatives and concentration risk independently challenged.

What Aperture would test: Test supplier and product origin, chain-of-custody claims, trade records, certifications, dependencies, disruptions and contradictory evidence.

Likely route: Enhanced Public-Source Due Diligence

Indicative fee: US$5,000–US$10,000

Specialist boundary: Customs, sanctions, laboratory, certification and legal determinations remain with qualified specialists.

Situation: A commercial model depends on a particular classification or duty treatment.

Evidence question: Aperture can verify product and source facts while qualified specialists decide classification.

What Aperture would test: Test supplier and product origin, chain-of-custody claims, trade records, certifications, dependencies, disruptions and contradictory evidence.

Likely route: Enhanced Public-Source Due Diligence

Indicative fee: US$5,000–US$10,000

Specialist boundary: Customs, sanctions, laboratory, certification and legal determinations remain with qualified specialists.

Situation: A vendor says an alternative input is equivalent.

Evidence question: The buyer needs the supporting technical, performance and certification evidence examined.

What Aperture would test: Test supplier and product origin, chain-of-custody claims, trade records, certifications, dependencies, disruptions and contradictory evidence.

Likely route: Enhanced Public-Source Due Diligence

Indicative fee: US$5,000–US$10,000

Specialist boundary: Customs, sanctions, laboratory, certification and legal determinations remain with qualified specialists.

Situation: The value or safety of goods depends on controlled handling.

Evidence question: The available movement, custody and exception records need mapping.

What Aperture would test: Test supplier and product origin, chain-of-custody claims, trade records, certifications, dependencies, disruptions and contradictory evidence.

Likely route: Enhanced Public-Source Due Diligence

Indicative fee: US$5,000–US$10,000

Specialist boundary: Customs, sanctions, laboratory, certification and legal determinations remain with qualified specialists.

Situation: An investor considers a major acquisition based on development, occupancy and market representations.

Evidence question: Material factual claims need independent testing.

What Aperture would test: Test ownership, control, planning, development, tenant, valuation-input and counterparty claims against available records and contrary evidence.

Likely route: Enhanced Public-Source Due Diligence

Indicative fee: US$5,000–US$10,000

Specialist boundary: Title, valuation, planning, engineering and legal conclusions remain with appropriately qualified professionals.

Situation: Projected returns depend on approvals, infrastructure and demographic assumptions.

Evidence question: The client needs the status and source evidence verified.

What Aperture would test: Test ownership, control, planning, development, tenant, valuation-input and counterparty claims against available records and contrary evidence.

Likely route: Enhanced Public-Source Due Diligence

Indicative fee: US$5,000–US$10,000

Specialist boundary: Title, valuation, planning, engineering and legal conclusions remain with appropriately qualified professionals.

Situation: A development opportunity depends on planning status and surrounding projects.

Evidence question: Public records, stated timelines and dependencies need careful distinction.

What Aperture would test: Test ownership, control, planning, development, tenant, valuation-input and counterparty claims against available records and contrary evidence.

Likely route: Enhanced Public-Source Due Diligence

Indicative fee: US$5,000–US$10,000

Specialist boundary: Title, valuation, planning, engineering and legal conclusions remain with appropriately qualified professionals.

Situation: A development is marketed around a major tenant.

Evidence question: The investor needs to establish the status, conditions and documentary basis of the commitment.

What Aperture would test: Test ownership, control, planning, development, tenant, valuation-input and counterparty claims against available records and contrary evidence.

Likely route: Enhanced Public-Source Due Diligence

Indicative fee: US$5,000–US$10,000

Specialist boundary: Title, valuation, planning, engineering and legal conclusions remain with appropriately qualified professionals.

Situation: A property thesis relies on occupancy or demand claims.

Evidence question: Definitions, dates, comparable evidence and contradictory indicators need testing.

What Aperture would test: Test ownership, control, planning, development, tenant, valuation-input and counterparty claims against available records and contrary evidence.

Likely route: Enhanced Public-Source Due Diligence

Indicative fee: US$5,000–US$10,000

Specialist boundary: Title, valuation, planning, engineering and legal conclusions remain with appropriately qualified professionals.

Situation: A transaction involves layered entities, rights or beneficial interests.

Evidence question: The factual structure needs mapping for legal and title specialists.

What Aperture would test: Test ownership, control, planning, development, tenant, valuation-input and counterparty claims against available records and contrary evidence.

Likely route: Enhanced Public-Source Due Diligence

Indicative fee: US$5,000–US$10,000

Specialist boundary: Title, valuation, planning, engineering and legal conclusions remain with appropriately qualified professionals.

Situation: A promoter describes approval as imminent.

Evidence question: The authoritative record, outstanding steps, objections and conditions need verification.

What Aperture would test: Test ownership, control, planning, development, tenant, valuation-input and counterparty claims against available records and contrary evidence.

Likely route: Enhanced Public-Source Due Diligence

Indicative fee: US$5,000–US$10,000

Specialist boundary: Title, valuation, planning, engineering and legal conclusions remain with appropriately qualified professionals.

Situation: A project depends on a promised public or third-party contribution.

Evidence question: Decision-makers need evidence of authority, funding, timing and conditions.

What Aperture would test: Test ownership, control, planning, development, tenant, valuation-input and counterparty claims against available records and contrary evidence.

Likely route: Enhanced Public-Source Due Diligence

Indicative fee: US$5,000–US$10,000

Specialist boundary: Title, valuation, planning, engineering and legal conclusions remain with appropriately qualified professionals.

Situation: Past use may affect value, risk or development.

Evidence question: Historical records, maps, reports and gaps need structured review before specialist assessment.

What Aperture would test: Test ownership, control, planning, development, tenant, valuation-input and counterparty claims against available records and contrary evidence.

Likely route: Enhanced Public-Source Due Diligence

Indicative fee: US$5,000–US$10,000

Specialist boundary: Title, valuation, planning, engineering and legal conclusions remain with appropriately qualified professionals.

Situation: A property decision is nearly approved.

Evidence question: An independent challenge tests market, tenant, approval, infrastructure and counterparty assumptions.

What Aperture would test: Test ownership, control, planning, development, tenant, valuation-input and counterparty claims against available records and contrary evidence.

Likely route: Enhanced Public-Source Due Diligence

Indicative fee: US$5,000–US$10,000

Specialist boundary: Title, valuation, planning, engineering and legal conclusions remain with appropriately qualified professionals.

Situation: An organisation makes a net-zero commitment.

Evidence question: The baseline, scope, exclusions, offsets, milestones and evidence need transparent review.

What Aperture would test: Test the sustainability or impact claim, baseline, measurement method, source independence, causal logic, exclusions and evidence of actual delivery.

Likely route: Claims & Evidence Audit

Indicative fee: US$3,000–US$7,500

Specialist boundary: Environmental certification, carbon accounting, legal compliance and scientific opinions may require specialists.

Situation: A project claims substantial emissions reduction.

Evidence question: The calculation basis, counterfactual, data and uncertainty need testing by appropriate specialists.

What Aperture would test: Test the sustainability or impact claim, baseline, measurement method, source independence, causal logic, exclusions and evidence of actual delivery.

Likely route: Claims & Evidence Audit

Indicative fee: US$3,000–US$7,500

Specialist boundary: Environmental certification, carbon accounting, legal compliance and scientific opinions may require specialists.

Situation: A report contains strong environmental and social claims without clear source trails.

Evidence question: The material propositions need an evidence audit.

What Aperture would test: Test the sustainability or impact claim, baseline, measurement method, source independence, causal logic, exclusions and evidence of actual delivery.

Likely route: Claims & Evidence Audit

Indicative fee: US$3,000–US$7,500

Specialist boundary: Environmental certification, carbon accounting, legal compliance and scientific opinions may require specialists.

Situation: A product is marketed as sustainable, recyclable or low-impact.

Evidence question: Definitions, comparisons, certifications and lifecycle evidence need verification.

What Aperture would test: Test the sustainability or impact claim, baseline, measurement method, source independence, causal logic, exclusions and evidence of actual delivery.

Likely route: Claims & Evidence Audit

Indicative fee: US$3,000–US$7,500

Specialist boundary: Environmental certification, carbon accounting, legal compliance and scientific opinions may require specialists.

Situation: A board relies on a climate scenario for capital allocation.

Evidence question: The assumptions, sources and decision relevance need independent challenge.

What Aperture would test: Test the sustainability or impact claim, baseline, measurement method, source independence, causal logic, exclusions and evidence of actual delivery.

Likely route: Claims & Evidence Audit

Indicative fee: US$3,000–US$7,500

Specialist boundary: Environmental certification, carbon accounting, legal compliance and scientific opinions may require specialists.

Situation: An organisation says its programme produced measurable improvement.

Evidence question: The baseline, attribution, measurement and contrary evidence need examination.

What Aperture would test: Test the sustainability or impact claim, baseline, measurement method, source independence, causal logic, exclusions and evidence of actual delivery.

Likely route: Claims & Evidence Audit

Indicative fee: US$3,000–US$7,500

Specialist boundary: Environmental certification, carbon accounting, legal compliance and scientific opinions may require specialists.

Situation: A fund or asset is described as meeting a sustainability classification.

Evidence question: The factual holdings, criteria and disclosures need reconciliation.

What Aperture would test: Test the sustainability or impact claim, baseline, measurement method, source independence, causal logic, exclusions and evidence of actual delivery.

Likely route: Claims & Evidence Audit

Indicative fee: US$3,000–US$7,500

Specialist boundary: Environmental certification, carbon accounting, legal compliance and scientific opinions may require specialists.

Situation: A company says its supply chain meets defined standards.

Evidence question: The scope, supplier tiers, verification records and exceptions need testing.

What Aperture would test: Test the sustainability or impact claim, baseline, measurement method, source independence, causal logic, exclusions and evidence of actual delivery.

Likely route: Claims & Evidence Audit

Indicative fee: US$3,000–US$7,500

Specialist boundary: Environmental certification, carbon accounting, legal compliance and scientific opinions may require specialists.

Situation: A strategy relies on carbon offsets.

Evidence question: The project, standard, additionality evidence, permanence and specialist dependencies need clear presentation.

What Aperture would test: Test the sustainability or impact claim, baseline, measurement method, source independence, causal logic, exclusions and evidence of actual delivery.

Likely route: Claims & Evidence Audit

Indicative fee: US$3,000–US$7,500

Specialist boundary: Environmental certification, carbon accounting, legal compliance and scientific opinions may require specialists.

Situation: An institution plans to publish strong beneficiary and outcome claims.

Evidence question: The definitions, data, calculations and evidence limitations need independent review.

What Aperture would test: Test the sustainability or impact claim, baseline, measurement method, source independence, causal logic, exclusions and evidence of actual delivery.

Likely route: Claims & Evidence Audit

Indicative fee: US$3,000–US$7,500

Specialist boundary: Environmental certification, carbon accounting, legal compliance and scientific opinions may require specialists.

Situation: A board considers a senior candidate whose professional history contains inconsistencies.

Evidence question: Authoritative records and material claims need proportionate verification.

What Aperture would test: Test material leadership representations, identity, credentials, track record, relationships, public records, contradictions and unresolved concerns.

Likely route: Corporate Public-Source Background Review

Indicative fee: US$2,500–US$5,000

Specialist boundary: Employment screening and person-specific research are accepted only where lawful and properly authorised.

Situation: Investors like the business but are uncertain about the founder’s representations.

Evidence question: Corporate history, credentials, prior ventures and public claims need testing.

What Aperture would test: Test material leadership representations, identity, credentials, track record, relationships, public records, contradictions and unresolved concerns.

Likely route: Corporate Public-Source Background Review

Indicative fee: US$2,500–US$5,000

Specialist boundary: Employment screening and person-specific research are accepted only where lawful and properly authorised.

Situation: A proposed director brings valuable experience but also potential conflicts.

Evidence question: The available role, relationship and history evidence needs structured review.

What Aperture would test: Test material leadership representations, identity, credentials, track record, relationships, public records, contradictions and unresolved concerns.

Likely route: Corporate Public-Source Background Review

Indicative fee: US$2,500–US$5,000

Specialist boundary: Employment screening and person-specific research are accepted only where lawful and properly authorised.

Situation: A company’s value appears heavily dependent on one individual.

Evidence question: The investor needs the factual basis of relationships, authority, knowledge and succession claims examined.

What Aperture would test: Test material leadership representations, identity, credentials, track record, relationships, public records, contradictions and unresolved concerns.

Likely route: Corporate Public-Source Background Review

Indicative fee: US$2,500–US$5,000

Specialist boundary: Employment screening and person-specific research are accepted only where lawful and properly authorised.

Situation: A candidate claims credit for major successes.

Evidence question: The board needs role, timing, shared responsibility and independent corroboration tested.

What Aperture would test: Test material leadership representations, identity, credentials, track record, relationships, public records, contradictions and unresolved concerns.

Likely route: Corporate Public-Source Background Review

Indicative fee: US$2,500–US$5,000

Specialist boundary: Employment screening and person-specific research are accepted only where lawful and properly authorised.

Situation: An appointment depends on stated qualifications, licences or memberships.

Evidence question: The current authoritative status and scope need verification.

What Aperture would test: Test material leadership representations, identity, credentials, track record, relationships, public records, contradictions and unresolved concerns.

Likely route: Corporate Public-Source Background Review

Indicative fee: US$2,500–US$5,000

Specialist boundary: Employment screening and person-specific research are accepted only where lawful and properly authorised.

Situation: A founder presents one explanation for an earlier failure.

Evidence question: Investors need the public and supplied record compared without assuming wrongdoing.

What Aperture would test: Test material leadership representations, identity, credentials, track record, relationships, public records, contradictions and unresolved concerns.

Likely route: Corporate Public-Source Background Review

Indicative fee: US$2,500–US$5,000

Specialist boundary: Employment screening and person-specific research are accepted only where lawful and properly authorised.

Situation: A leader may hold outside interests relevant to a decision.

Evidence question: The accessible relationship and corporate evidence needs proportionate mapping.

What Aperture would test: Test material leadership representations, identity, credentials, track record, relationships, public records, contradictions and unresolved concerns.

Likely route: Corporate Public-Source Background Review

Indicative fee: US$2,500–US$5,000

Specialist boundary: Employment screening and person-specific research are accepted only where lawful and properly authorised.

Situation: Management says a credible succession plan exists.

Evidence question: The board needs evidence of identified roles, readiness, dependencies and unresolved gaps.

What Aperture would test: Test material leadership representations, identity, credentials, track record, relationships, public records, contradictions and unresolved concerns.

Likely route: Corporate Public-Source Background Review

Indicative fee: US$2,500–US$5,000

Specialist boundary: Employment screening and person-specific research are accepted only where lawful and properly authorised.

Situation: A high-profile appointment is nearly approved.

Evidence question: Independent challenge tests the material claims and searches for information capable of changing the decision.

What Aperture would test: Test material leadership representations, identity, credentials, track record, relationships, public records, contradictions and unresolved concerns.

Likely route: Corporate Public-Source Background Review

Indicative fee: US$2,500–US$5,000

Specialist boundary: Employment screening and person-specific research are accepted only where lawful and properly authorised.

Situation: A donor considers substantial funding for an organisation reporting impressive impact.

Evidence question: Governance, leadership, operating history and outcome claims need testing.

What Aperture would test: Test the organisation, leadership, funding, programme, outcome and partner claims against independent records, governance evidence and material gaps.

Likely route: Enhanced Public-Source Due Diligence

Indicative fee: US$5,000–US$10,000

Specialist boundary: Charity law, audit, safeguarding and programme evaluation may require qualified specialists.

Situation: An organisation plans to publish a report capable of influencing policy.

Evidence question: The central claims, sources and contrary evidence need independent review.

What Aperture would test: Test the organisation, leadership, funding, programme, outcome and partner claims against independent records, governance evidence and material gaps.

Likely route: Enhanced Public-Source Due Diligence

Indicative fee: US$5,000–US$10,000

Specialist boundary: Charity law, audit, safeguarding and programme evaluation may require qualified specialists.

Situation: A foundation must choose among applicants making different impact claims.

Evidence question: The material representations need comparable evidence standards.

What Aperture would test: Test the organisation, leadership, funding, programme, outcome and partner claims against independent records, governance evidence and material gaps.

Likely route: Enhanced Public-Source Due Diligence

Indicative fee: US$5,000–US$10,000

Specialist boundary: Charity law, audit, safeguarding and programme evaluation may require qualified specialists.

Situation: An organisation reports a large number of people reached or helped.

Evidence question: Definitions, duplication, period and supporting records need testing.

What Aperture would test: Test the organisation, leadership, funding, programme, outcome and partner claims against independent records, governance evidence and material gaps.

Likely route: Enhanced Public-Source Due Diligence

Indicative fee: US$5,000–US$10,000

Specialist boundary: Charity law, audit, safeguarding and programme evaluation may require qualified specialists.

Situation: A charity attributes improved outcomes to its programme.

Evidence question: The evidence must distinguish participation, correlation, causation and uncertainty.

What Aperture would test: Test the organisation, leadership, funding, programme, outcome and partner claims against independent records, governance evidence and material gaps.

Likely route: Enhanced Public-Source Due Diligence

Indicative fee: US$5,000–US$10,000

Specialist boundary: Charity law, audit, safeguarding and programme evaluation may require qualified specialists.

Situation: A funder is unsure whether money was used as represented.

Evidence question: The documentary and public record needs structuring before audit or legal escalation.

What Aperture would test: Test the organisation, leadership, funding, programme, outcome and partner claims against independent records, governance evidence and material gaps.

Likely route: Enhanced Public-Source Due Diligence

Indicative fee: US$5,000–US$10,000

Specialist boundary: Charity law, audit, safeguarding and programme evaluation may require qualified specialists.

Situation: An organisation considers working through a local partner in a difficult environment.

Evidence question: Ownership, leadership, access, record and exposure need proportionate diligence.

What Aperture would test: Test the organisation, leadership, funding, programme, outcome and partner claims against independent records, governance evidence and material gaps.

Likely route: Enhanced Public-Source Due Diligence

Indicative fee: US$5,000–US$10,000

Specialist boundary: Charity law, audit, safeguarding and programme evaluation may require qualified specialists.

Situation: A campaign relies on a striking statistic.

Evidence question: The original source, definition, date and applicability need verification before publication.

What Aperture would test: Test the organisation, leadership, funding, programme, outcome and partner claims against independent records, governance evidence and material gaps.

Likely route: Enhanced Public-Source Due Diligence

Indicative fee: US$5,000–US$10,000

Specialist boundary: Charity law, audit, safeguarding and programme evaluation may require qualified specialists.

Situation: A business says its commercial model produces measurable social benefit.

Evidence question: Financial and impact propositions need separate evidence tests.

What Aperture would test: Test the organisation, leadership, funding, programme, outcome and partner claims against independent records, governance evidence and material gaps.

Likely route: Enhanced Public-Source Due Diligence

Indicative fee: US$5,000–US$10,000

Specialist boundary: Charity law, audit, safeguarding and programme evaluation may require qualified specialists.

Situation: A proposed donor or partner may create reputational or governance risk.

Evidence question: The factual relationships and public record need review before acceptance.

What Aperture would test: Test the organisation, leadership, funding, programme, outcome and partner claims against independent records, governance evidence and material gaps.

Likely route: Enhanced Public-Source Due Diligence

Indicative fee: US$5,000–US$10,000

Specialist boundary: Charity law, audit, safeguarding and programme evaluation may require qualified specialists.

Situation: An object’s origin or ownership history materially affects value.

Evidence question: Accessible provenance needs reconstruction, with breaks and later attributions clearly identified.

What Aperture would test: Trace provenance, custody, attribution, chronology and source relationships, while keeping gaps, disputed records and alternative explanations visible.

Likely route: Reality Verification Assessment

Indicative fee: US$2,500–US$5,500

Specialist boundary: Authentication, valuation, conservation, title and restitution opinions may require qualified specialists.

Situation: Competing groups make contradictory claims about an event.

Evidence question: The earliest and strongest records, provenance and credible alternative explanations need examination.

What Aperture would test: Trace provenance, custody, attribution, chronology and source relationships, while keeping gaps, disputed records and alternative explanations visible.

Likely route: Reality Verification Assessment

Indicative fee: US$2,500–US$5,500

Specialist boundary: Authentication, valuation, conservation, title and restitution opinions may require qualified specialists.

Situation: A widely accepted proposition rests on a secondary citation.

Evidence question: The chain needs tracing toward underlying primary records.

What Aperture would test: Trace provenance, custody, attribution, chronology and source relationships, while keeping gaps, disputed records and alternative explanations visible.

Likely route: Reality Verification Assessment

Indicative fee: US$2,500–US$5,500

Specialist boundary: Authentication, valuation, conservation, title and restitution opinions may require qualified specialists.

Situation: A historical document is attributed to a particular person, institution or date.

Evidence question: Provenance and contextual evidence need structured assessment with specialists where required.

What Aperture would test: Trace provenance, custody, attribution, chronology and source relationships, while keeping gaps, disputed records and alternative explanations visible.

Likely route: Reality Verification Assessment

Indicative fee: US$2,500–US$5,500

Specialist boundary: Authentication, valuation, conservation, title and restitution opinions may require qualified specialists.

Situation: A collection or object has gaps in its ownership chain.

Evidence question: The available record needs reconstruction before legal or specialist conclusions.

What Aperture would test: Trace provenance, custody, attribution, chronology and source relationships, while keeping gaps, disputed records and alternative explanations visible.

Likely route: Reality Verification Assessment

Indicative fee: US$2,500–US$5,500

Specialist boundary: Authentication, valuation, conservation, title and restitution opinions may require qualified specialists.

Situation: A modern argument relies on an old statistic repeated without context.

Evidence question: The original definition, collection method and later reinterpretation need verification.

What Aperture would test: Trace provenance, custody, attribution, chronology and source relationships, while keeping gaps, disputed records and alternative explanations visible.

Likely route: Reality Verification Assessment

Indicative fee: US$2,500–US$5,500

Specialist boundary: Authentication, valuation, conservation, title and restitution opinions may require qualified specialists.

Situation: An organisation makes a significant claim about its origins or role.

Evidence question: Contemporary records and later narratives need comparison.

What Aperture would test: Trace provenance, custody, attribution, chronology and source relationships, while keeping gaps, disputed records and alternative explanations visible.

Likely route: Reality Verification Assessment

Indicative fee: US$2,500–US$5,500

Specialist boundary: Authentication, valuation, conservation, title and restitution opinions may require qualified specialists.

Situation: A consequential private or historical decision relies on genealogical claims.

Evidence question: Records, identity links and gaps need disciplined mapping without overstating certainty.

What Aperture would test: Trace provenance, custody, attribution, chronology and source relationships, while keeping gaps, disputed records and alternative explanations visible.

Likely route: Reality Verification Assessment

Indicative fee: US$2,500–US$5,500

Specialist boundary: Authentication, valuation, conservation, title and restitution opinions may require qualified specialists.

Situation: Interviews preserve different accounts of the same event.

Evidence question: The evidence record needs chronology, proximity, corroboration and contradiction control.

What Aperture would test: Trace provenance, custody, attribution, chronology and source relationships, while keeping gaps, disputed records and alternative explanations visible.

Likely route: Reality Verification Assessment

Indicative fee: US$2,500–US$5,500

Specialist boundary: Authentication, valuation, conservation, title and restitution opinions may require qualified specialists.

Situation: A visual record is used to establish location, ownership or event.

Evidence question: Origin, date, modification, context and chain of custody need examination.

What Aperture would test: Trace provenance, custody, attribution, chronology and source relationships, while keeping gaps, disputed records and alternative explanations visible.

Likely route: Reality Verification Assessment

Indicative fee: US$2,500–US$5,500

Specialist boundary: Authentication, valuation, conservation, title and restitution opinions may require qualified specialists.

Situation: An individual considers committing a substantial portion of personal wealth to an unfamiliar opportunity.

Evidence question: The material representations need testing before specialist advice or payment.

What Aperture would test: Define the decision, isolate the material proposition, test the strongest available evidence and identify the smallest responsible next step.

Likely route: Focused Evidence Review

Indicative fee: US$1,500–US$3,000

Specialist boundary: A fit review determines whether specialist, regulated or broader investigative work is required.

Situation: Years of documents and conflicting institutional records concern a consequential private matter.

Evidence question: The client needs one coherent chronology, proposition map and gap register.

What Aperture would test: Define the decision, isolate the material proposition, test the strongest available evidence and identify the smallest responsible next step.

Likely route: Focused Evidence Review

Indicative fee: US$1,500–US$3,000

Specialist boundary: A fit review determines whether specialist, regulated or broader investigative work is required.

Situation: A family considers costly international relocation based on eligibility, timing, cost and access claims.

Evidence question: Authoritative facts need verification while immigration, tax and legal advice remain with specialists.

What Aperture would test: Define the decision, isolate the material proposition, test the strongest available evidence and identify the smallest responsible next step.

Likely route: Focused Evidence Review

Indicative fee: US$1,500–US$3,000

Specialist boundary: A fit review determines whether specialist, regulated or broader investigative work is required.

Situation: A client senses that something is wrong but cannot define the question.

Evidence question: The first task is to identify the decision, material propositions, available evidence and smallest responsible next step.

What Aperture would test: Define the decision, isolate the material proposition, test the strongest available evidence and identify the smallest responsible next step.

Likely route: Focused Evidence Review

Indicative fee: US$1,500–US$3,000

Specialist boundary: A fit review determines whether specialist, regulated or broader investigative work is required.

Situation: Management believes it already knows the answer.

Evidence question: Independent challenge searches for contradictory evidence, hidden assumptions and credible alternatives.

What Aperture would test: Define the decision, isolate the material proposition, test the strongest available evidence and identify the smallest responsible next step.

Likely route: Focused Evidence Review

Indicative fee: US$1,500–US$3,000

Specialist boundary: A fit review determines whether specialist, regulated or broader investigative work is required.

Situation: A consequential decision is nearly approved.

Evidence question: One final independent review tests what the existing work may have missed.

What Aperture would test: Define the decision, isolate the material proposition, test the strongest available evidence and identify the smallest responsible next step.

Likely route: Focused Evidence Review

Indicative fee: US$1,500–US$3,000

Specialist boundary: A fit review determines whether specialist, regulated or broader investigative work is required.

Situation: An earlier finding remains in use while circumstances change.

Evidence question: Defined evidence streams need monitoring to determine whether justified reliance has changed.

What Aperture would test: Define the decision, isolate the material proposition, test the strongest available evidence and identify the smallest responsible next step.

Likely route: Focused Evidence Review

Indicative fee: US$1,500–US$3,000

Specialist boundary: A fit review determines whether specialist, regulated or broader investigative work is required.

Situation: A client has already commissioned extensive work but remains uncertain.

Evidence question: Aperture tests the material proposition without automatically repeating the entire process.

What Aperture would test: Define the decision, isolate the material proposition, test the strongest available evidence and identify the smallest responsible next step.

Likely route: Focused Evidence Review

Indicative fee: US$1,500–US$3,000

Specialist boundary: A fit review determines whether specialist, regulated or broader investigative work is required.

Situation: A problem does not fit neatly into a conventional category.

Evidence question: The question is whether a lawful, consequential evidence problem can be defined and responsibly tested.

What Aperture would test: Define the decision, isolate the material proposition, test the strongest available evidence and identify the smallest responsible next step.

Likely route: Focused Evidence Review

Indicative fee: US$1,500–US$3,000

Specialist boundary: A fit review determines whether specialist, regulated or broader investigative work is required.

Situation: A person or institution is about to act on information that has never been independently tested.

Evidence question: Aperture defines the material claim, examines the evidence and states what the record can carry.

What Aperture would test: Define the decision, isolate the material proposition, test the strongest available evidence and identify the smallest responsible next step.

Likely route: Focused Evidence Review

Indicative fee: US$1,500–US$3,000

Specialist boundary: A fit review determines whether specialist, regulated or broader investigative work is required.