Home / Methodology
Transparency
Methodology
Every statement on this platform is assigned an evidence class. Where sources conflict, the conflict is disclosed rather than resolved.
Source-checked
Register-backed
Fact ≠ assessment
Correction path
Evidence classes
A to F
Table scrolls sideways →
| Class | Label | Meaning |
|---|---|---|
| A | Official register | Primary source, directly verifiable. |
| B | Official filing | Corporate document from the register. |
| C | Court / authority | Official document from proceedings. |
| D | Contract / communication | Party document, provenance must be evidenced. |
| E | Third-party source | Additional confirmation required. |
| F | Tip-off / affected party report | Unconfirmed until verified. |
Publication rules
- 01Only statements taken from an official register, or expressly marked unverified, are published.
- 02Roles and register data are presented as facts. Assessments, patterns and risk indicators are presented separately in language as observations.
- 03Naming a person or company implies no statement about criminal or unlawful conduct.
- 04Where two sources conflict on a date, number or role, both variants are shown and marked 'conflicting'.
- 05Personal data is limited to what public registers disclose anyway: name, function, year or month of birth and the company address held in the register.
- 06Statements by named persons are reproduced in full and in the same place.
- 07Every record carries the date of its last check. Registers change daily.
Limits of this research
Registers are snapshots
Entries are made with delay. A mandate shown here as current may already have ended, and vice versa.
Identical names are not proof
Without a date of birth or personal number it is not always possible to confirm that the same individual is meant.
Beneficial owners
Not all jurisdictions publish UBO data in full. Chains of participation may be incompletely represented.
No on-site verification
Whether business activity takes place at an address has not been verified.
Legal framework
The analysis relies on publicly available register data. Processing takes place for journalistic and documentary purposes and in the legitimate interest of transparency in commerce (Art. 6(1)(f) GDPR).