A report is read by someone who was not there
Every design decision in a report follows from one fact: the reader was not present for the investigation and cannot ask the analyst a question. Usually the reader is a lawyer, an adviser, a compliance function or an official recipient, working under time pressure, and their first task is to decide how much of the document they can rely on.
So the structure is built for interrogation rather than persuasion. A reader should be able to reach any statement, find its source, and see how strongly it is held, without reading the document end to end.
The sections, in order
Scope and question. What was asked, what was examined, what was deliberately excluded, and the period covered. Written before the work and unchanged afterwards, so the report can be measured against its own brief.
Method. Which data sources were used, how material was collected and preserved, and which analytical techniques were applied. Enough detail that a competent third party could repeat the work.
Timeline. The reconstructed sequence of events, each entry dated and sourced. For non-technical readers this is usually the most valuable section in the document.
Findings. Numbered statements, each with its supporting exhibits and its confidence grade. Findings are separated from commentary so a reader can extract the evidential core cleanly.
Exhibits. The indexed source material, each item with capture time, origin and hash. Findings cite exhibit numbers, so any statement can be checked against the record behind it.
Limitations. What could not be established, what was not examined, and where observation stopped.
Signoff. Who performed the work and who reviewed it, under two-stage supervisory signoff, with dates.
How confidence grading works
Every finding carries a grade rather than a tone of voice. Verified means independently confirmed by two or more unrelated sources. Strongly supported means consistent with multiple sources with no material contradiction observed. Partially supported means consistent with at least one source, with corroboration incomplete. Unverified means recorded as observed with no independent corroboration located. Conflicting means sources disagree and the disagreement is documented rather than resolved by assumption. Insufficient evidence means the available material does not support a finding in either direction.
The grade attaches to the finding, not to the report. A single document routinely contains verified findings alongside unverified ones, and that mixture is the honest state of most investigations. A report where everything is verified should invite scepticism, not confidence.
Grades are applied by the analyst and tested at review, where the reviewer's job includes challenging any grade that the cited exhibits do not support.
Why the limitations section matters most
Readers often skip it. It is nonetheless the section that determines how far the rest of the document can be pushed, because it marks the edge of what was observed.
It states where a trace stopped and why, which lines of enquiry were outside scope, which material could not be obtained or preserved, and which questions the evidence does not answer. A report without a substantive limitations section is either trivial or overstated.
It also protects the reader. Anyone acting on the file needs to know precisely where the evidence ends, because that is where their own risk begins.
What a report does not contain
No legal conclusions. Whether conduct was unlawful is a question for lawyers and courts, on evidence including but not limited to this file.
No valuations or projections. The report documents observable movement and history, not what an asset is worth today or what might be retrieved.
No advice. Digital Asset Claims does not advise on strategy, does not hold or move assets, does not execute transactions and does not administer funds.
No named party without an evidential basis. Where evidence supports association at a stated confidence level, that association is set out with its grade. Where it does not, the report says so, and the underlying material remains in the sealed archive so the position can be revisited if better evidence appears.