Octopus Investigation logo
Contact us

A structured approach to investigative research

Each assignment begins with a defined objective. We establish the information required, decide which sources and methods are appropriate, and agree a scope that reflects your needs and the realities of the relevant jurisdiction.

Animation: a confidential document is scanned line by line, three passages are highlighted and flagged in the margin, and a magnifier examines one of them.
Reading, flagging, examiningIllustrative
Process structure

The process at a glance

Six stages in three phases. Verification can send work back to collection, and any request beyond the agreed scope returns to scoping before it proceeds.

Investigation process at a glanceSix stages grouped into three phases: define, investigate and conclude. Verification can loop back to collection when gaps or discrepancies appear, and work outside the agreed scope returns to scoping. DefineInvestigateConcludeStep 1Assessment& scopeStep 2ResearchplanningStep 3InformationcollectionStep 4Verification& analysisStep 5Findings& reportingStep 6Delivery &clarificationGaps or discrepancies prompt further researchWork outside the agreed scope returns to scoping
Main sequenceFurther research loopScope revision
Stage four is where findings are separated from unconfirmed information.

Run digitally, end to end

Every stage runs in the Octopus client portal, where you place the order, follow progress and download the report.

See how the portal works
Stage by stage

What happens at each stage

Every stage has defined inputs and outputs, so you can see what we need from you and what you receive.

  1. Case assessment and scope definition

    We review objectives, subject information, jurisdictions, intended use and the specific questions to answer, then identify feasibility, authorization requirements, source limitations and proposed deliverables.

    Inputs

    • Objectives and questions
    • Subject details and identifiers
    • Jurisdictions involved
    • Intended use of findings

    Outputs

    • Feasibility view
    • Authorization requirements
    • Known source limitations
    • Proposed deliverables

    Questions we ask first

    • What decision will the findings support?
    • Which identifiers are available for the subject?
    • Are consent or authorizations required?
    • What timing is realistic in this jurisdiction?

  2. Research planning

    We identify relevant information sources, verification methods, records to request and any additional enquiries that may be appropriate. Plans reflect jurisdictional differences.

    Inputs

    • Agreed scope
    • Jurisdiction profile
    • Source availability

    Outputs

    • Source plan
    • Verification methods
    • Records to request
    • Follow-up enquiries

    What varies by jurisdiction

    • Which records are publicly accessible
    • Certified or historical document availability
    • Processing times at issuing authorities
    • Privacy, consent and data protection rules

  3. Information collection

    We collect relevant information through appropriate sources, which may include registries, court records, public databases, media archives, authorized institutional contacts and lawful source enquiries.

    Inputs

    • Source plan
    • Subject identifiers

    Outputs

    • Collected records with source references
    • Media and open-source material
    • Enquiry responses
    Animation: a records search for a sample company queries six sources and highlights the two records that match the subject identifiers.
    Searching defined sourcesIllustrative

  4. Verification and analysis

    We review information for relevance, consistency, source reliability and identity-matching issues, and assess whether discrepancies warrant further research or qualification in the report.

    Inputs

    • Collected material
    • Subject identifiers

    Outputs

    • Verified and unverified items separated
    • Discrepancies flagged
    • Gaps referred back for further research
    Animation: details provided about a company are compared field by field with the official record; five fields match and one address discrepancy is flagged.
    Comparing against the recordIllustrative

  5. Findings and reporting

    We prepare a structured report that may include an executive summary, methodology, findings, source references, risk indicators and limitations.

    Inputs

    • Verified findings
    • Qualified items
    • Limitations

    Outputs

    • Executive summary
    • Findings with source references
    • Risk indicators
    • Disclosed limitations
    Animation: a report builds section by section from executive summary to limitations and receives a quality review mark.
    Structuring the reportIllustrative

  6. Delivery and clarification

    We deliver the report through the agreed channel and address reasonable clarification requests. Additional work outside the agreed scope may require a revised scope.

    Inputs

    • Final report
    • Agreed delivery channel

    Outputs

    • Report delivered to authorized recipients
    • Clarifications answered
    • Revised scope for any new work

    Delivered in the portal

    • Encrypted delivery to authorized recipients
    • PDF and Word downloads with version history
    • Clarification requests linked to the report
    • Every access recorded in the audit trail
Timeline

How the stages overlap

Collection and verification run side by side for much of an assignment. Reporting begins once the main findings are stable, followed by a quality review before delivery.

Indicative assignment timelineStages overlap: collection and verification run in parallel for much of an assignment, with reporting beginning before verification is complete.InstructionMidpointDeliveryAssessment & scopeResearch planningInformation collectionVerification & analysisFindings & reportingDelivery & clarificationMilestonesScope agreedQuality reviewReport delivered
DefineInvestigateConclude
Indicative sequence. Durations depend on jurisdiction, record access and scope.
Verification

How a finding earns confidence

A single record rarely settles a question. We compare independent sources, check that each one refers to the same subject, and report the level of support behind each finding.

Source triangulationOfficial records, public and media sources, and authorized enquiries are compared. A finding is treated as corroborated when independent sources are consistent and the identity match holds. OfficialrecordsPublic &media sourcesAuthorizedenquiriesCorroboratedfindingIdentity matching andconsistency checks
Sources are compared, not simply collected.
Corroboration and confidence (conceptual)Confidence in a finding rises as more independent sources agree, with diminishing returns. Where identity matching is unresolved, confidence stays lower however many sources agree.LowModerateHigh1234+Independent sources consistent with the findingConfidence in findingIdentity confirmedIdentity not confirmed
Conceptual illustration. Unresolved identity matching limits confidence however many sources agree.
An important distinction

What a search result does and does not mean

A search that returns no results does not necessarily establish that no relevant record exists. Records may be unavailable, incomplete, unindexed, restricted or held outside the sources searched.

How a record search result is reportedIf a record is identified and the identity is matched, it is reported as a verified finding; if the match is uncertain it is reported with qualification. If no record is identified, it is reported as not identified in the sources searched, which is not proof that no record exists. Record search indefined sourcesRecord identifiedNo record identifiedIdentity matchedto the subject?YesUncertainReported as averified findingReported withqualificationReported as not identifiedin the sources searchedNot proof of absenceRecords unavailableIncomplete or unindexedAccess restrictedHeld in other sourcesOutside the defined scope

Information identified

Material located in the sources searched, with its source referenced.

Information verified

Material corroborated and matched to the subject with sufficient confidence.

Not established

Questions the available sources could not answer, stated plainly with the reason.

Scope depth

Standard and enhanced due diligence

Enhanced due diligence applies broader research and deeper examination where circumstances warrant additional scrutiny, for example complex ownership, higher-risk relationships or significant information gaps.

The comparison shows how research areas typically shift between the two. The exact scope is always agreed before work starts.

Read about due diligence services
Research areaStandard DDEnhanced DD
Corporate registration and status
Directors and shareholders of record
Beneficial ownership indicators
Litigation and court records
Regulatory matters
Adverse media and open sources
Associated entities and affiliations
Discreet source enquiries, where lawful
Address or site verification
Typically includedWhere relevantNot usually included
Illustrative. Scope is agreed for each assignment.
Standards

Our reporting principles

Five commitments that apply to every report we deliver.

Accuracy

Findings are represented according to the information available.

Source transparency

Relevant sources and the nature of information are identified where appropriate.

Context

Allegations, proceedings, adverse reporting and sensitive findings are presented with context.

Limitations

Material gaps, unavailable records, inconclusive results and jurisdictional restrictions are disclosed.

Confidentiality

Reports are intended for authorized recipients and handled under agreed confidentiality and data protection terms.

Start with a clear scope

Share your objectives and we will outline a research plan suited to your jurisdiction and requirements.

Discuss an investigation