Approach
Structured discovery. Traceable decisions.
Cipher’s approach is designed to withstand challenge: clear scope, explicit evidence-weighting, and outputs that can be used in governance, procurement and diligence.
Start with a scope template
If you are time-constrained, we can timebox and prioritise high-impact checks first.
Method (non-binary, artefact-led)
This is deliberately not a linear checklist. It is a loop with gates, where evidence can force a pivot.
Scope gateIdentity anchorsEvidence rubricDecision ladder
Engagement shape
A loop, not a line
Each phase produces an artefact. The loop is deliberate: evidence can force scope narrowing, identity disambiguation, or a risk-control pivot.
Pivots allowed
01
Scope gateDefine
Frame the decision, clarify what must be true, and agree scope boundaries (in/out).
Output: Scope template + deliverables list
02
DiscoveryDiscover
Establish identity anchors, map entities, and run targeted checks against the decision frame.
Output: Identity anchors + pivot log
03
QualityTriangulate
Weight evidence, reconcile conflicts, and downgrade claims that cannot be anchored to stronger sources.
Output: Evidence rubric + confidence tiers
04
DecisionDeliver
Produce a decision-ready pack: findings, residual risk, and controls/triggers where uncertainty remains.
Output: Decision ladder + risk controls
Where constraints are tight, we prioritise the checks that change the decision, not the checks that merely add detail.
Evidence rubric
We weight evidence explicitly and state limits. This reduces implied certainty and keeps packs defensible.
Evidence rubric
Evidence strength and why it matters
We weight sources explicitly. High-confidence anchors reduce false positives and prevent implied certainty.
| Tier | Strength | Typical use | Failure mode to avoid |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authoritative registers and filings | High | Identity, ownership, enforcement, and formal status (where applicable). | Assuming a claim is true because it is repeated elsewhere; prefer anchors. |
| Owner-published channels | Med | Stated services, positioning, named partners and client claims (verify where material). | Marketing claims drifting into “facts” without independent support. |
| Reputable media and sector outlets | Med | Context, corroboration, and chronology (still verify key identifiers). | Time-sensitive narratives; ensure recency and corroboration. |
| Aggregators / self-published commentary | Low | Lead generation only; never anchor critical claims without corroboration. | False positives, misidentification, and untraceable assertions. |
Delivery shape
A compact set of artefacts that keeps decisions moving without weakening credibility.
A
ArtefactDecision framing
What must be true, what would change the decision, and what thresholds apply.
B
ArtefactTraceable discovery
Identity anchors, pivot log, and homonym exclusions so your team can reproduce the reasoning.
C
ArtefactControls and triggers
Residual risk expressed as controls, monitoring triggers, and acceptance gates (not binary pass/fail).
Want examples of outputs?
Vignettes show structure and decision value, without client identifiers.