Our Approach to Evidence-Led Digital Investigation
The approach is built around evidence rather than assumption, with corroboration testing, written grading and documented gaps shaping every case from intake to closure.
Evidence first
A wallet, IP address or transaction alone is never treated as proof on its own.
Corroborated
Findings are tested against a second, independent source before grading.
Graded
Every conclusion carries an explicit evidence grade in the final report.
Lawful
Only public records, client-supplied material and lawful sources are used.
Digital Asset Claims Investigation Method and Evidence Verification
Digital Asset Claims combines AI-assisted analysis, blockchain analytics, OSINT and infrastructure intelligence. The six principles below govern how every engagement is delivered.
Raw data, analysis and conclusions are not the same thing.
A raw record — a transaction hash, a log entry, a public post — is a fact about what exists. Analysis is what we do with that fact: clustering, cross-referencing, timeline building. A conclusion is a graded statement about what the analysis, once corroborated, actually supports. Keeping these three stages distinct, and never presenting one as the other, is central to how a report is built. No finding reaches a client until it has been checked against at least one independent source, and every finding is classified using the same six grades sitewide:
- Verified
- Established by primary records and independently reproducible.
- Strongly supported
- Multiple independent sources agree and no source contradicts them.
- Partially supported
- Some corroboration exists but the chain of evidence is incomplete.
- Unverified
- Recorded as an investigative lead, not yet tested against a second source.
- Conflicting
- Sources disagree; the conflict is documented rather than resolved by preference.
- Insufficient evidence
- The available material cannot answer the question asked.
A wallet address alone does not establish legal ownership of the funds it holds. Custody of a private key is a technical fact; who is legally entitled to the underlying asset is a separate question that on-chain data cannot answer by itself.
A transaction alone does not establish beneficial ownership or control. A transfer shows that value moved between two addresses — it does not show who instructed that movement, who benefits from it, or under what arrangement it took place.
Technical indicators require context. An IP address, a device fingerprint or a shared hosting provider can narrow a line of enquiry, but on their own they identify a connection, not a person, and are reported alongside the corroborating evidence needed to interpret them rather than as standalone identifiers.
Method-first delivery — every principle reduced to procedure.
Six standards, each enforceable, each independent of a preferred outcome.
Evidence before assumption
A wallet address alone does not establish identity. An IP address alone does not establish ownership. Every inference is tested before it is written down.
Non-custodial
We never take custody of, transfer or move client digital assets. Our output is a report, not a transaction.
Source-linked reporting
Every finding in a report traces to a specific source: an on-chain record, a public filing, a lawfully obtained infrastructure indicator.
Corroboration testing
Findings are checked against independent sources for provenance, chronology and consistency before they are graded.
Graded, not asserted
Findings are classified from verified to insufficient evidence. Conflicting sources are documented rather than resolved by preference.
Plain disclosure
Scope and limitations are stated in writing before work begins. We do not provide legal, financial or investment advice.
The principles applied consistently on every case
Digital Asset Claims applies the same evidence principle across every domain, reinforced through corroboration rules and second-pair review rather than marketing claims.
Clarity
Reports describe what the evidence shows without overstating conclusions.
Discipline
Analyst discretion is bounded by written procedure and review.
Continuity
One case manager stays with the file from intake to closure.
Disclosure
Scope and limits are stated in writing before work starts.
Principles that anchor the working approach
Digital Asset Claims publishes binding principles that appear in every case scope and are enforced by written procedure and second-pair review.
Clarity
The evidence is described as it stands, without selling an outcome.
Discipline
Analyst discretion is limited by written procedure.
Continuity
One case manager remains attached to the case from intake to closure.
Disclosure
Scope and limits are stated in writing up front.
How disagreements are handled inside the process
Honest disagreement on evidence grading is expected. Issues are resolved through documented escalation, not informal negotiation.
Escalation path
An internal escalation route is published for contested findings.
Written rationale
The reasoning behind a grading decision is recorded in writing.
Client overlay
Clients can add annotations to contested points in the file.
No silent edits
Deliverables are not amended without a written note.
How the approach relates to the wider case
The work is not designed to compete with lawyers, law enforcement or insolvency professionals. It sits beside them and stays outside enforcement action.
Beside lawyers
Reports are built for direct review by a client's own legal advisers.
Beside authorities
Reports can be handed to law enforcement as one referenced package.
Beside insolvency teams
Findings support downstream decisions made by other professionals.
Beside trustees
Structured findings support trustee or estate-level oversight.