Research / The product
Before you move, know what the internet remembers
Before a campaign launches, before a board seats a director, before an agency signs a client, someone should know exactly what is out there. That is the work. Public records and court filings. Social posts from fifteen years ago. News that fell out of Google but never left the web. Profiles on platforms you forgot you joined. And when someone is deliberately targeting you or your business, we find out who, and we document it to the standard your lawyers will want.
A bound dossier, not a search results page
A deep background check from us is not a folder of screenshots. It is a single, organized document that tells you what we found, where it came from, and why it matters, written so a board member, an attorney, or a spouse could read it cold and understand the picture in full. Every claim is sourced. Every finding is dated. Nothing is inferred and presented as fact.
We build it the way we would want it built if the subject were us: thorough, plainly written, and organized around decisions rather than data. If the reason you commissioned it was to decide whether to hire, invest, endorse, or run, the dossier is structured to answer that question directly, not to bury the answer in raw findings.
What we actually look at, and how it aggregates
Public records and court filings, read in full instead of stopping at the docket summary. Social history going back as far as the platform allows, including accounts the subject has since deleted or forgotten. News coverage that has dropped out of Google's index but is still sitting on a server somewhere, discoverable to anyone who knows where to look. Forgotten profiles on old platforms, review sites, forums, and directories that most people stopped thinking about a decade ago.
Then we map how it aggregates, because a name does not resolve the same way everywhere. Google returns one order, an AI assistant answers with another, and a data broker sells a third. Reading all of them is the only way to know what a person actually finds when they look you up, and where the real problem is hiding.
One name. One set of sources on the open web: a news archive page, a 2009 forum thread, a broker listing, an old profile, the Wikipedia entry.
- 1The news article, still #1
- 2A data-broker listing
- 3An old social profile
- 1A broker listing, ranked first
- 2The Wikipedia entry
- 3A 2009 forum thread
- 1The Wikipedia entry, paraphrased
- 2A press profile
- 3Whatever it was last trained on
- 1A live citation to the news piece
- 2A directory page
- 3A forum answer
An engagement that came down to what we found first
A pixel-for-pixel clone of a pre-IPO mining company's website appeared online, carrying the company's real street address and a working contact form collecting inquiries meant for the real business. It had been live for months before anyone noticed. Once we saw it, taking it off the internet was a matter of days, not months.
Research was the whole job. Finding it was the hard part, and documenting it to the standard a registrar and a legal team would accept is what made the takedown fast once we did. We recorded what the clone was serving, tied it to the real company's details it had copied, and handed over an evidence package rather than a complaint.
Read the case study: An imposter site, dead in days, not months →
Treated like the sensitive work it is
A background check is only useful if the people involved trust it will stay private. Nothing about the engagement is discussed with anyone outside it, including whether it happened at all.
We are not a consumer reporting agency under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, and this is not a pre-employment or tenant screening product. This is intelligence and due diligence work, built for board appointments, campaign launches, endorsement deals, and personal safety, not for employment-eligibility determinations governed by the FCRA.
Dedicated research programs
We also do this work for sports agents, founders, public figures, professionals, and businesses of every kind. The program is the same; the framing is built around what actually matters to your situation.
The dossier lands before the decision does.
Every claim sourced, every finding dated, organized around the call you have to make rather than the data we happened to find. Nothing inferred and presented as fact.