A Structured Process for Digital Asset Investigation
Every investigation follows a documented process: intake, evidence collection, technical analysis, corroboration testing and structured reporting, with review at each stage.
Stage 01
Scope is agreed in writing and the material already available is reviewed.
Stage 02
Blockchain, network, OSINT and infrastructure evidence is collected and logged.
Stage 03
Wallets, entities and relationships are mapped under a defined evidence taxonomy.
Stage 04
Each finding is corroborated against a second, independent source before grading.
Digital Asset Claims Process
Every engagement follows the same ten-stage sequence, from intake through to a written evidence report — method, not improvisation.
Case Intake
Scope, lawful basis and available identifiers are agreed in writing before any research begins. No account credentials are ever requested or collected.
Applied identically on every case, so the same instruction run twice produces a structurally comparable result.
Initial Evidence Review
Client-supplied material — transaction hashes, wallet addresses, correspondence, screenshots — is logged and assessed for what it can plausibly support.
Applied identically on every case, so the same instruction run twice produces a structurally comparable result.
Data Normalisation
Raw records from different sources and formats are converted into a single structured dataset so blockchain, OSINT and infrastructure data can be analysed together.
Applied identically on every case, so the same instruction run twice produces a structurally comparable result.
Blockchain Reconstruction
Public ledger data is pulled into a timeline of transactions, tracing hops across wallets, bridges and swap protocols where funds moved between chains.
Applied identically on every case, so the same instruction run twice produces a structurally comparable result.
Wallet Relationship Analysis
Addresses are clustered and mapped against counterparties, exchange deposit addresses and known typologies to surface plausible ownership and control patterns.
Applied identically on every case, so the same instruction run twice produces a structurally comparable result.
OSINT Research
Lawfully available public records, filings, domain history and public activity are researched to corroborate or contradict findings from the on-chain analysis.
Applied identically on every case, so the same instruction run twice produces a structurally comparable result.
Infrastructure Intelligence
Lawfully obtained network and hosting indicators are reviewed to assess whether separate online activity shares common infrastructure.
Applied identically on every case, so the same instruction run twice produces a structurally comparable result.
AI-Assisted Correlation
Automated analysis surfaces patterns and cross-references across large datasets; every output is reviewed by an analyst before it is treated as a candidate finding.
Applied identically on every case, so the same instruction run twice produces a structurally comparable result.
Evidence Verification
Each candidate finding is tested against an independent source for provenance, chronology and consistency, and graded according to how strongly it is supported.
Applied identically on every case, so the same instruction run twice produces a structurally comparable result.
Evidential Reporting
A structured report is compiled: timelines, sourced findings, methodology, evidence grades and a written record of what remains unresolved.
Applied identically on every case, so the same instruction run twice produces a structurally comparable result.
How we hold to evidence before assumption.
Evidence First
Every finding is auditable, sourced and reproducible against the underlying record.
Written Scope
Every phase has defined inputs, outputs and limitations — disclosed upfront.
Method-Driven
No ad-hoc analysis. Every engagement follows the same structured sequence.
Lawful Access Only
No unauthorised access to systems, accounts, devices, wallets or networks.
Independent Review
We report what the evidence shows — the decisions that follow remain the client's.
How the process stays consistent across complex cases
At Digital Asset Claims, consistency comes from written procedure and documented corroboration rules, so similar cases produce similarly graded, comparable evidence reports.
Procedure
Written operating notes guide how each stage of a case is handled.
Corroboration
No finding is graded above unverified until tested against a second source.
Evidence log
Sources, timestamps and analyst actions are logged throughout the case.
Documented gaps
Where evidence runs out, the report records the gap instead of filling it in.
Inside the investigation process
Each case moves through the same structured stages. The goal is consistency: two analysts working the same case should arrive at comparably graded findings.
Intake
Secure collection, scope sign-off and case manager assignment happen first.
Collection
Blockchain, network, OSINT and infrastructure evidence is gathered and logged.
Analysis
Wallets, entities and relationships are mapped under a published taxonomy.
Reporting
Findings, exhibits and timelines are assembled for review.
Quality controls layered over the working method
Digital Asset Claims does not rely on individual diligence alone. Second-pair review and documented corroboration rules sit on top of the analytical method.
Second pair
Cases are reviewed by another analyst before release.
Corroboration
No finding is graded above unverified until tested against a second source.
Evidence log
Access, edits and analytical steps are recorded throughout the case.
Written procedure
Analytical methods are documented rather than left to individual habit.
Why the method stops short of giving advice
The boundary is written into the method itself. No stage recommends legal action or a course of conduct; the report describes the evidence and leaves decisions elsewhere.
Describe only
Deliverables explain the evidence without proposing legal or financial action.
Client decides
Decisions remain with the client or their appointed advisers.
No enforcement
Litigation, regulatory or law-enforcement steps stay outside remit.
No overstatement
Findings are never graded higher than the corroboration supports.