Clarity
Clear scope. Clear limits. Clear outputs.
Cipher engagements start with scope discipline. We make assumptions explicit, weight evidence, and state what cannot be confirmed within the available time and sources.
Use the scope template to start
If you are uncertain what to include, send a minimal draft. We will tighten it into a defensible scope.
Decision clarity (non-binary)
This is the spine of how we keep work defensible. Uncertainty is handled as actions and controls, not ignored.
Clarity
From question to decision (with uncertainty carried forward)
Uncertainty is carried forward as controls, triggers, and residual risk — not hidden assumptions.
Question
AnchorState the decision in one line. Avoid proxy questions.
Constraints
RealityTime, budget, jurisdiction, reputational exposure, and acceptable residual risk.
Assumptions
ExplicitList what must be true. Mark the ones that are high impact.
Evidence
DefensibleWeight sources. Anchor critical claims to stronger evidence first.
Decision
UsablePresent findings, residual risk, and controls/triggers for what remains uncertain.
Assumptions that make work faster and safer
The fastest way to lose time is to start with implied assumptions. This grid makes them explicit and actioned.
Assumptions
Assumption / evidence grid
High impact + low confidence items are made explicit verification actions. This reduces false confidence and rework.
| Item | Impact | Confidence | Disposition | Next action |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| The subject/entity is correctly identified | High | Med | Priority verify | Confirm identifiers early (registry IDs, licence numbers, DoB month–year) and record homonym exclusions. |
| The decision threshold is agreed (what would stop the deal) | High | Med | Priority verify | Define acceptance thresholds and red lines up front; do not infer them from context. |
| Evidence is sufficient for the level of challenge expected | High | Low | Priority verify | Escalate to stronger sources or narrow the claim; state limitations explicitly where evidence is thin. |
| Monitoring triggers are defined where uncertainty remains | Med | Med | Priority verify | Specify triggers and time horizons (e.g., filings, enforcement actions, leadership change, sanctions updates). |
Evidence strength vs decision relevance
A compact way to explain why some sources anchor identity and enforcement, while others only support context. This is non-binary: a point can be relevant but weak, or strong but peripheral.
Evidence strength × decision relevance
Hover a point for meaning. Click to pin. Use filters to reduce noise.
Hover a point to see its rationale and how we upgrade evidence. Click to pin.
How to read the chart
Method1) Strength is not “truth”; it is challenge-resistance
The higher the point, the more likely it is to survive scrutiny (audit, procurement challenge, litigation risk, board review).
2) Relevance is decision-specific
A source can be strong but irrelevant to the gate you are facing. Relevance rises when it directly changes the decision or the control plan.
3) What we do with “weak-but-relevant”
We either (a) upgrade the anchor to stronger sources, (b) narrow the claim, or (c) preserve the claim with a confidence downgrade and explicit limitations.
Practical inference
If a key claim sits low on strength, the defensible move is not to “beautify” it. The move is to change the evidence plan (stronger anchors) or change the claim (narrow + caveat).
Boundaries
Boundaries protect both sides: they keep the work credible and stop misalignment.
No implied certainty
QualityIf a claim cannot be anchored, we state limits and downgrade confidence rather than smoothing it over.
Scope is explicit
ControlWe define what is in, what is out, and what “done” means — including timeboxes and decision thresholds.
Privacy by design
CareWe avoid unnecessary personal data, focus on what is decision-relevant, and structure outputs for safe sharing.
Frequently asked questions
Compact answers, aligned to how we actually deliver.
Can you do this quickly?
Yes, if we agree what must be true and prioritise checks that change the decision. Speed without scope discipline creates rework.
Will you give a binary pass/fail?
No. We provide an evidence-weighted view with confidence tiers, residual risk, and recommended controls and triggers.
What do you need from us?
Decision statement, timeframe, jurisdictions, known identifiers, and what would change the decision. If you cannot provide all, send a minimal draft.
Can you tailor outputs to our governance pack?
Yes. We align to your board or procurement format and keep claims attributable and consistent across the pack.