FORENSIC REPORT LIBRARY

See how evidence becomes a reviewable finding.

Illustrative reporting formats showing the structure of financial reconstruction, chronology and discrepancy analysis. All examples are fictional templates, not completed casework or evidence of outcomes achieved.

WHEN TO USE IT

The evidence problem

When the documentary record is too large, fragmented or inconsistent to understand reliably at a glance.

WHAT YOU CAN SEND

Typical material

PDFs, Word files, spreadsheets, reports, statements, correspondence and other lawfully supplied records.

WHAT YOU RECEIVE

Reviewable output

Evidence register, chronology, comparison points, entities, evidence gaps and reviewed findings.

Specimen 01 — Bank transaction reconstruction

FICTIONAL EXAMPLE. A numbered transaction schedule would record statement source, date, amount, counterparty, matched supporting record, confidence and unresolved questions. An accompanying narrative would explain methods and limitations.

Specimen 02 — Historic income schedule

FICTIONAL EXAMPLE. A year-by-year comparison of documented receipts with available accounts, tax records, invoices and bank deposits, including clear unexplained differences and missing-document flags.

Specimen 03 — Litigation chronology

FICTIONAL EXAMPLE. Events organised by date and issue, with document identifiers, references to source passages, alternative accounts and outstanding verification points.

Specimen 04 — Document discrepancy report

FICTIONAL EXAMPLE. A side-by-side findings register showing two supplied versions, exact differences, why a discrepancy may matter, and where verification or further disclosure is required.

Report safeguards

A real MOLE report should state the precise instruction, materials examined, examination method, source references, observations, limitations and areas of uncertainty. Sample formats do not represent expert-witness accreditation.

METHOD

How this analysis is carried out.

01

1. Define the question

The review starts with a precise objective: what must be established, compared, traced or reconstructed from the supplied material.

02

2. Register the evidence

Documents are identified, classified and kept distinguishable by source, date, type and file identity before substantive conclusions are drawn.

03

3. Extract and structure

Dates, people, organisations, events, figures, references and material propositions are extracted into a reviewable evidence structure.

04

4. Cross-check the record

Related documents are compared across time. Apparent contradictions, omissions, changed accounts and evidential gaps are treated as review points, not automatic findings.

05

5. Review against source

Potentially material observations are checked back against the underlying document before they are presented as reviewed findings.

DELIVERABLES

What a professional output should contain.

OUTPUT

Evidence register

A structured record of the material actually reviewed, suitable for audit and later cross-reference.

OUTPUT

Source-linked findings

Material observations presented with enough source information to locate the supporting record.

OUTPUT

Chronology / analytical schedule

Where relevant, events, transactions, comparisons or issues arranged into a practical working schedule.

OUTPUT

Evidence gaps and limitations

A separate record of missing material, ambiguity, assumptions and points that cannot safely be concluded from the supplied evidence.

OUTPUT

Review status

Clear distinction between automated extraction, analytical review points and human-reviewed findings.

MOLE REPORT STANDARD

Precise enough to be checked.

Professional evidence work should not hide the route from observation back to source. MOLE outputs are designed around traceability, scope control and explicit limitations.

SCOPE

Question first

The report states what was asked, what material was supplied and what falls outside the review.

PROVENANCE

Source-linked

Material observations are linked to identifiable source records rather than presented as unsupported assertions.

SEPARATION

Fact, inference, limitation

Extracted facts, analytical observations, unresolved points and limitations are kept distinguishable.

QUALITY CONTROL

Review before reliance

Automated signals remain review points until checked against the underlying material.

VERSIONING

Dated and controlled

Reports can be versioned so later evidence or corrections do not silently overwrite the earlier analytical record.

BOUNDARIES

No inflated claims

Where the evidence cannot safely establish a proposition, the report should say so explicitly.

CLIENT EVIDENCE ROOM

Keep the brief, evidence, reports and billing together.

Discuss an enquiry with MOLE and track exactly what has been requested and delivered.

Contact MOLE →
Scope: MOLE provides evidence analysis and investigative support. Automated intelligence points require human review. MOLE does not currently claim accredited device acquisition, deleted-data recovery or laboratory computer/mobile examination.