The evidence problem
When the documentary record is too large, fragmented or inconsistent to understand reliably at a glance.
Typical material
PDFs, Word files, spreadsheets, reports, statements, correspondence and other lawfully supplied records.
Reviewable output
Evidence register, chronology, comparison points, entities, evidence gaps and reviewed findings.
Proposition-by-proposition comparison
Break statements into discrete factual propositions so equivalent points can be compared precisely rather than relying on whole-document impressions.
Chronology testing
Place assertions against dated emails, reports, notes, messages, orders and other contemporaneous records where supplied.
Changed account schedule
Record additions, omissions, timing changes, changed descriptions and material wording differences with source references.
Context and limitation
Distinguish genuine inconsistency from clarification, different level of detail, changed context or uncertainty in the source record.
METHOD
How this analysis is carried out.
1. Define the question
The review starts with a precise objective: what must be established, compared, traced or reconstructed from the supplied material.
2. Register the evidence
Documents are identified, classified and kept distinguishable by source, date, type and file identity before substantive conclusions are drawn.
3. Extract and structure
Dates, people, organisations, events, figures, references and material propositions are extracted into a reviewable evidence structure.
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.
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.
Evidence register
A structured record of the material actually reviewed, suitable for audit and later cross-reference.
Source-linked findings
Material observations presented with enough source information to locate the supporting record.
Chronology / analytical schedule
Where relevant, events, transactions, comparisons or issues arranged into a practical working schedule.
Evidence gaps and limitations
A separate record of missing material, ambiguity, assumptions and points that cannot safely be concluded from the supplied evidence.
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.
Question first
The report states what was asked, what material was supplied and what falls outside the review.
Source-linked
Material observations are linked to identifiable source records rather than presented as unsupported assertions.
Fact, inference, limitation
Extracted facts, analytical observations, unresolved points and limitations are kept distinguishable.
Review before reliance
Automated signals remain review points until checked against the underlying material.
Dated and controlled
Reports can be versioned so later evidence or corrections do not silently overwrite the earlier analytical record.
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.
Open a secure MOLE case and track exactly what has been requested and delivered.
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.