The Forensic Decisioneering Framework

We begin by anchoring the engagement to the actual legal questions at issue, not generalized business metrics.

• Claims, defenses, and burden of proof are identified upfront
• Scope is explicitly tied to pleadings, expert disclosures, and admissibility standards
• Assumptions are documented and stress-tested early
   

Outcome: Analysis that is legally relevant, not merely analytically impressive.

Data credibility is foundational to defensibility.

• Source validation and provenance documentation
• Chain-of-custody discipline for datasets
• Reproducible data preparation protocols
• Clear separation between source data, transformations, and outputs
   

Outcome: Data that can be explained, replicated, and defended.

Our models are designed to answer legal questions, not academic hypotheticals.

• Transparent, auditable modeling structures
• Conservative, court-tested methodologies
• Sensitivity and scenario analysis embedded by design
• Assumptions explicitly linked to record evidence
   

Outcome: Conclusions that survive cross-examination, not just peer review.

Before anything is delivered, we challenge our own work the way opposing experts will.

• Alternative model construction and comparison
• Assumption reversal and downside testing
• Identification of methodological vulnerabilities
• Pre-emptive rebuttal logic development
   

Outcome: Fewer surprises under oath.

Great analysis fails if it cannot be understood by judges, juries, and counsel.

• Plain-language explanations without loss of rigor
• Visuals designed for courtroom and mediation use
• Clear linkage from data → method → conclusion
• Attorney-ready narratives, not academic reports
   

Outcome: Findings that persuade, not confuse.

When our work supports expert testimony, it is built accordingly.

• Methodology documentation aligned with expert disclosures
• Testimony preparation support and mock examination assistance
• Ongoing consultation through discovery, mediation, and trial
   

Outcome: A seamless analytical foundation for expert opinions.

Legal-First Design
Our methodology is built for law firms and in-house counsel: not retrofitted from consulting or accounting playbooks.

Courtroom Accountability
Every analytical choice is made with the expectation it may be challenged.

Repeatability & Transparency
If an analysis cannot be replicated, it is not defensible.

Strategic Restraint
We avoid unnecessary complexity that creates exposure without evidentiary value.

Our Forensic Decisioneering methodology is purpose-built for:

• Complex commercial disputes
• Economic damages and financial impact analysis
• Regulatory-exposed matters
• High-risk litigation where analytical defensibility is non-negotiable