The three steps
Collect the claims
We start from what is actually being said and asked about a person: scam accusations, collapse stories, "was he charged" questions, net-worth talk. We write each as a specific, testable claim. Vague vibes do not get a verdict; concrete claims do.
Pull the primary record
We go to the source: court judgments, regulator actions, insolvency and administration filings, company registries, and dated reporting from named outlets. Primary records outrank commentary. Aggregators and risk-score sites are treated as leads to chase down, never as the basis for a verdict. See our full source policy.
Issue a verdict
Each claim gets one plain stamp. If the timeline matters, we say so, with dates.
Our verdicts
- Verified: the record supports the claim.
- True, with context: the claim is accurate but misleading without a key fact, usually a date or a change of control.
- Not supported: the record does not back the claim.
- Confirmed clean: we checked a specific adverse claim and found no charges, findings or actions.
- Disputed: sources genuinely conflict and the record is not yet settled.
Why dates decide attribution
The single most common error we correct is blaming a founder for something a company did after they left it. A founder's name stays attached to a business for its entire life, including years of new ownership. So when a company fails, we always ask: who held ownership, board seats and management control when the failure-causing decisions were made? If control had already changed hands, the failure does not belong to the earlier owner, however loudly the search results pair the two. You can see this test applied in full detail in our Neel Khokhani check.
Corrections
We update a verdict when the record changes or when we get something wrong. Corrections backed by primary documents can be sent to [email protected].