Specimen download · RL-DD-2026-0511-006
A methodology specimen on a public-record subject.
A 65-page counterparty intelligence report prepared as a methodology demonstration on a public-record subject. No client commissioned the work, the subject did not participate, and every finding rests on open-source intelligence as of the report date.
PDF · 2.8 MB · 65 pages · May 2026
Why this document
The value sits in the disclosure, not the recommendation.
The subject has been designated under six Western sanctions regimes since March 2022, including the United Kingdom, the European Union, Canada, Australia, Switzerland, and Jersey. The United States has not listed him. On that record, the recommendation against any new engagement is mechanical, and the sanctions designations foreclose the question.
The interesting part of the document is not the recommendation. It is the asset and entity map across the six sanctioning jurisdictions, the regulated wind-down path for hypothetical pre-2022 exposure, and the disclosed divergence between the analyst's recommendation tone and the firm's Scenario Flagging Algorithm. The algorithm reads the engagement as substantially more dangerous than the analyst's wording suggests, with a mean severity of 0.68 and a 54 percent modeled probability of bad outcomes. That divergence is on the page rather than smoothed over.
A multi-billion-pound frozen sale-proceeds account sits at the centre of the report as the live constraint. The UK government, Jersey authorities, and the European Court of Human Rights are now contesting how those funds should be handled. That contest is what an institutional reader is actually being asked to price.
What is in the document
Twenty-six numbered sections running from the method note through to the signed peer review, with source tiering on every cited record. The document carries the full audit-trail apparatus the firm runs on any institutional engagement.
Subject identification, sanctions screening across the six designating jurisdictions plus US OFAC, PEP screening, layer-by-layer beneficial ownership trace, corporate structure, key personnel and network mapping, social and digital footprint, litigation and regulatory record, adverse media review with T1 through T4 source labels, financial indicators, jurisdiction risk, the Scenario Flagging Algorithm output, a red-flag scorecard, mitigating factors, the overall assessment, the recommendation under named conditions, an information-gaps section, conflict disclosure, refresh guidance, and the countersigned authorship block.
The document is watermarked throughout as an internal demonstration. Real client engagements ship with recipient-named watermarks and named-recipient cover letters in place of the demonstration markings.
Coverage compared
Twenty-six standard sections per report. The industry stops at around ten.
An apples-to-apples comparison of counterparty due diligence sections across five firms a typical institutional buyer would shortlist alongside Red Label. Fourteen of the twenty-six standard sections in our reports are not delivered as standard by anyone else surveyed.
Sections delivered by Red Label and not by the others surveyed
Every Red Label report contains twenty-six standard sections. A typical industry deliverable contains around ten.
Where the industry stops at "screened, no findings," our reports continue through risk quantification, mitigating factors, conditioned recommendations, escalation triggers, refresh guidance, and a source-by-source credibility index. The diligence ends where the auditable record ends. Not before.
§ 01 · Coverage at a glance
Sections delivered, by firm.
§ 02 · Coverage by category
Where the gap opens up.
Identity & screening
Table stakes. Every firm clears the bar.
Ownership & structure
Mostly standard, with patchy beneficial-owner depth.
Reputational & legal
Adverse media exists across the field. Tiered source credibility does not.
Risk quantification
The category where the industry simply does not compete.
Judgment & decision support
Everyone gives a verdict. Only one report describes what to do with it.
Governance & transparency
The audit trail nobody else publishes inside the report.
§ 03 · The Red Label difference
Fourteen sections you will only find in our reports.
Unique sections
Adverse media with T1 to T4 source tiering
Credibility classification on every allegation and source, not just a citation list.
Adverse media coverage timeline
Visual chronology of media events with a structured allegation register.
Jurisdiction risk scoring
Per-jurisdiction CPI score, FATF status, and tiered commentary.
Risk matrix on page one
Multi-axis risk rating visible on the cover, calibrated to engagement type.
Red flag scorecard
Weighted scoring across all risk dimensions, not a single composite number.
Scenario Flagging Algorithm
Probabilistic scenario analysis with reproducibility seed and run record retained in the engagement file.
Mitigating factors
A structured counterweight to red flags, designed against false-positive bias.
Recommendation with conditions
Specific, actionable conditions and escalation triggers attached to the call.
Action items with owners and sequencing
Named responsible parties and an order of operations for each condition.
Escalation triggers
Defined events that would change the recommendation after delivery.
Information gaps
Explicit documentation of what could not be verified, with bolt-on cost and SLA.
Conflict disclosure
Analyst and firm conflict-of-interest declaration filed per engagement.
Refresh guidance
Explicit shelf life and named trigger events for report refresh.
Signature and peer review
Named analyst, peer reviewer, and a definition-of-done checklist.
Section by section
The full breakdown, section by section, firm by firm.
| Report section | Red Label | Kroll | Control Risks | Nardello | Mintz |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Identity & screening | |||||
Subject identification Name variants, DOB, nationality, document-level ID verification | |||||
Sanctions screening Multi-list screen with database names and dates logged | |||||
PEP screening Discrete political-exposure check, separated from sanctions | |||||
| Ownership & structure | |||||
Beneficial ownership trace Layer-by-layer chase with opacity rating and cold-trail documentation | Partial | Partial | |||
Corporate structure Subsidiaries, affiliates, holding structure with status tags | Partial | ||||
Key personnel and network Directors, officers, associates with cross-directorship mapping | |||||
| Reputational & legal | |||||
Social media and digital footprint Systematic digital-presence review beyond adverse media | Partial | Partial | — | — | |
Litigation and regulatory Civil, criminal, bankruptcy, regulatory actions with forum search log | |||||
Adverse media (general) Negative news review across public sources | |||||
Adverse media with T1 to T4 source tiering Credibility classification on every allegation and source | Unique | — | — | — | — |
Adverse media coverage timeline Visual chronology of media events with allegation register | Unique | — | — | — | — |
| Risk quantification | |||||
Financial indicators Financial health markers, funding history, valuation context | Partial | Partial | — | ||
Jurisdiction risk Per-jurisdiction CPI score, FATF status, tiered commentary | Unique | — | Partial | — | — |
Risk matrix (cover page) Multi-axis risk rating visible on page one, calibrated to engagement type | Unique | — | — | — | — |
Red flag scorecard Weighted scoring across all risk dimensions | Unique | — | — | — | — |
Scenario Flagging Algorithm Probabilistic scenario analysis with reproducibility seed and run record retained in the engagement file | Unique | — | — | — | — |
| Judgment & decision support | |||||
Mitigating factors Structured counterweight to red flags, designed against false-positive bias | Unique | — | — | — | — |
Overall assessment Synthesised judgment with go, no-go, or conditional recommendation | |||||
Recommendation with conditions Specific, actionable conditions and escalation triggers attached to the call | Unique | — | — | — | — |
Action items with owners and sequencing Named responsible parties and order of operations for each condition | Unique | — | — | — | — |
Escalation triggers Defined events that would change the recommendation | Unique | — | — | — | — |
| Governance & transparency | |||||
Information gaps Explicit documentation of what could not be verified, with bolt-on cost and SLA | Unique | — | — | — | — |
Conflict disclosure Analyst and firm conflict-of-interest declaration per engagement | Unique | — | Partial | — | — |
Refresh guidance Explicit shelf life and trigger events for report refresh | Unique | — | — | — | — |
Signature and peer review Named analyst, peer reviewer, and definition-of-done checklist | Unique | — | — | — | — |
Tiered source index Full source list with credibility tier assigned to each | Unique | — | — | — | — |
Methodology note Published method explained in-report, not behind NDA | — | — | — | — | |
Download
Read the report before any first conversation.
The work is a more honest introduction to what the firm does than anything we would say in a sales meeting. The PDF is publicly available and carries no restrictions on circulation.