A finding is only as good as the evidence behind it and the honesty about its limits. Here is how every Cascade conclusion is sourced, graded, tested, verified, and explained.
Nothing reaches a client that has not moved through all five. Where a step cannot be completed, we say so rather than paper over it.
Every claim begins with a source. We identify what a finding rests on (a corporate registry filing, a court or regulatory record, a local-language report, a primary document, or a direct field observation) and capture it, with the date it was obtained and who obtained it.
If a claim has no source we can point to, it is not a finding. It is a hypothesis, and we label it that way.
Not all sources carry equal weight. We grade each one, a letter (A–F) for how reliable the source is and a number (1–6) for how credible the information is, so an authoritative primary record and a single unverified account are never read as equivalent. The grade travels with every source behind a finding.
We look for corroboration across independent sources, and we deliberately look for what would contradict a finding, not only what confirms it. A conclusion that survives a genuine attempt to break it is worth more than one that was never challenged.
Where a question matters and where verification is possible, we confirm it in the field, through a site visit, a local-language inquiry, or direct observation of what desktop sources only assert. This is the step that separates decision-grade intelligence from desktop research.
We state plainly what the evidence supports, how confident we are, and where the picture is still open. A finding you cannot interpret is not useful; a confidence level you cannot see is not honest. Both are part of every conclusion we deliver.
We grade sources on the Admiralty scale, the source-rating standard long used in professional intelligence. A letter rates how reliable the source is; a number rates how credible the specific information is. The two are kept separate on purpose: a usually reliable source can still pass on something unconfirmed, and an honest grade has to show both.
We apply one standard to everything we assess: a human source, a documentary record, and a direct field observation are all graded the same way, so a single method runs through every finding we produce. Those grades roll up into a finding-level confidence, stated plainly as Confirmed, Credible, or Unconfirmed, so you see both the inputs and the conclusion they support.
A grade pairs the two: the letter rates the source, the number rates the information. Deeper shading means more weight; a faint grade signals less, or not yet judged — never a verdict of “bad.”
When a finding carries the Field Verified mark, it means a Cascade analyst confirmed it on the ground, through a site visit, direct observation, or primary documentation obtained in person, rather than inferring it from a database.
The mark is applied to specific findings, not to whole reports. A report can contain field-verified facts alongside documented and reported ones; the mark tells you precisely which is which. We never apply it to a claim that has not actually been verified in the field.
Finding. The manufacturer’s registered facility is operational at the stated address.
How it was established. An analyst attended the site, confirmed active production, and documented it with timestamped photography.
What the mark does not mean. It does not certify output volumes or financials, only what was directly observed.
Good field intelligence depends on people who speak to us in confidence, often at some risk to themselves. Protecting them is both an ethical obligation and the reason we are able to work at all.
Decision-grade means knowing the edges of what the evidence can carry. We are explicit about what intelligence work cannot do.
Tell us what you need to verify. We’ll show you how the method would apply to your matter, in confidence.