Who this is for
This is the right service when you have pieces from several places and need them assembled into one defensible account, rather than a single technical question answered.
- Anyone whose situation spans several platforms, accounts or devices at once
- People who have been told by others that nothing can be proved
- Businesses that need a sequence of events reconstructed, not just a conclusion
- Attorneys and insurers who need the order of events established before they act
Turning fragments into a timeline
Individual artifacts are rarely decisive alone. An image is one data point. The same image, plus its metadata, plus the account that posted it, plus infrastructure that account shares with three others, becomes something different in kind. The analysis establishes those relationships and then attacks them — a connection that only holds if you assume the conclusion is not a connection, and gets marked as such.
Knowing where the record still exists
A single matter typically touches six or seven distinct source types: platform records, device artifacts, cloud backups, telecom metadata, payment processors, public registries. Knowing which of them will still hold the relevant record, and for how long, frequently determines whether a matter is provable at all. Retention windows are shorter than most people expect, and the practical difference between contacting someone in week one and month six is often the difference between a provable matter and an unprovable one.
What arrives at the end
A written analysis presenting the sequence of events, the evidence supporting each step, and an explicit confidence level for each link in the chain. Where two readings of the same evidence are possible, both are set out. The document is built to be handed to someone else — counsel, an insurer, a platform's trust and safety team — and to be read by a person who was not present for any of the work.
Limits and legal considerations
Analysis cannot manufacture records that were never created or have already been purged, and it cannot make a weak inference strong. Some matters resolve to a confident attribution; others resolve only to a narrowed set of possibilities, and we report that outcome as clearly as any other. We will not overstate a finding to make a report feel more satisfying — an overstated conclusion is worse than no conclusion, because it collapses precisely when it is put under pressure and takes the credible findings down with it.
Questions people ask first
I only have a handful of screenshots. Is that enough to start?
Frequently, yes. Screenshots establish that something occurred and roughly when, which is enough to identify which sources are worth pursuing while records still exist. Bring whatever you have, in whatever state it is in — organising it is our job, not a prerequisite.
How long do platforms keep the records you need?
It varies widely by platform and record type, and much of it is measured in weeks or months rather than years. This is the single strongest argument for making contact early: the assessment is inexpensive relative to a matter, and the evidence position only gets worse while you decide.
Can you tell me who is behind an account for certain?
Sometimes to a high confidence, sometimes to a narrowed group, sometimes not at all. Anyone who promises certainty before examining the material is selling something. What we commit to is telling you honestly which of those three outcomes you have reached, and why.
Should I confront the other party first?
No — and this is the most common way people damage their own matter. Confrontation prompts deletion, account changes and blocking, which removes evidence that was recoverable an hour earlier. Preserve everything, change nothing, and speak to us before you act.