The evidence problem
When the documentary record is too large, fragmented or inconsistent to understand reliably at a glance.
MOLE uses a source-first workflow: define the question, register the evidence, structure the record, compare related material, isolate review points and verify material observations against the source before reporting.
When the documentary record is too large, fragmented or inconsistent to understand reliably at a glance.
PDFs, Word files, spreadsheets, reports, statements, correspondence and other lawfully supplied records.
Evidence register, chronology, comparison points, entities, evidence gaps and reviewed findings.
Define what must be established, the relevant period, material supplied and any explicit exclusions.
Record file identity, source, date, type and relationship to the wider evidence set before higher-level analysis.
Extract dates, people, organisations, events, transactions, references and material propositions into reviewable schedules.
Test related documents against one another, preserving both sides where the record conflicts or remains incomplete.
Treat automated signals as review points until a material observation has been checked against the underlying source.
Present findings with provenance, unresolved issues, evidential gaps and any limits on what can safely be concluded.
The review starts with a precise objective: what must be established, compared, traced or reconstructed from the supplied material.
Documents are identified, classified and kept distinguishable by source, date, type and file identity before substantive conclusions are drawn.
Dates, people, organisations, events, figures, references and material propositions are extracted into a reviewable evidence structure.
Related documents are compared across time. Apparent contradictions, omissions, changed accounts and evidential gaps are treated as review points, not automatic findings.
Potentially material observations are checked back against the underlying document before they are presented as reviewed findings.
A structured record of the material actually reviewed, suitable for audit and later cross-reference.
Material observations presented with enough source information to locate the supporting record.
Where relevant, events, transactions, comparisons or issues arranged into a practical working schedule.
A separate record of missing material, ambiguity, assumptions and points that cannot safely be concluded from the supplied evidence.
Clear distinction between automated extraction, analytical review points and human-reviewed findings.
Professional evidence work should not hide the route from observation back to source. MOLE outputs are designed around traceability, scope control and explicit limitations.
The report states what was asked, what material was supplied and what falls outside the review.
Material observations are linked to identifiable source records rather than presented as unsupported assertions.
Extracted facts, analytical observations, unresolved points and limitations are kept distinguishable.
Automated signals remain review points until checked against the underlying material.
Reports can be versioned so later evidence or corrections do not silently overwrite the earlier analytical record.
Where the evidence cannot safely establish a proposition, the report should say so explicitly.
Open a secure MOLE case and track exactly what has been requested and delivered.