One question sits behind this service: does the supplier exist, and is it what it says it is, as far as public records and its own material can show, before you send money. The result is a report that lays stated details beside recorded ones and lists the differences found between them. It is a public-record review. It is not an audit, a credit report, a screening exercise or a guarantee of future conduct.
A website, a price list and a friendly email thread feel like evidence but are all produced by the supplier. The review sets the supplier's own account of itself against material it does not control: public company records, and how consistently the name, address and activity appear across the website, the record and trade listings. The aim is not a verdict. It is to turn a feeling of unease or comfort into a short list of things that match and things that do not.
The report uses the wording no obvious discrepancy found in reviewed sources when nothing conflicts. That is a narrower statement than approval, and the report says so on its face.
What you need confirmed, the supplier's name, website and country, any registration number or licence, and the order context.
Records and own material are read in that order, then compared detail by detail.
Matches, discrepancies and open points, each with its source, plus a note on what the sources cannot show.
Each row is one detail the supplier presents; the other columns say where it is tested and what an unresolved result looks like.
Stated in: Website footer, invoice, contract draft. Tested against: Company record where the registry is public. If it does not match: Listed as a discrepancy with both versions quoted.
Stated in: Contact page, correspondence. Tested against: Record address and other public mentions. If it does not match: Noted as a difference, without a judgment on it.
Stated in: About page, brochure. Tested against: Registration date in the record, website and trade presence. If it does not match: Marked inference if only indirect sources exist.
Stated in: Supplier's claim. Tested against: Issuer or register where public. If it does not match: Marked as stated by the supplier, or unavailable where no public register shows it.
Stated in: Listings, references. Tested against: Exhibitor lists, directories, independent mentions. If it does not match: Presence recorded without a quality reading.
Where a record is not public, the cell says unavailable.
The report concentrates on existence and consistency: is there a registered entity under that name, and does the legal name on the draft invoice match a recorded entity.
A marketplace profile shows how the platform describes the seller. The review asks what exists outside the platform, so the profile is one source among several.
The review compares the new name and entity with the earlier record and notes whether the public trail explains the change. It does not decide whether to continue the relationship.
Research reports what can be established from public and provided sources. It is not a guarantee about a counterparty's future conduct and not legal advice.
No. It means no obvious discrepancy was found in the sources reviewed. It says nothing about future conduct or quality.
No. It is a commercial public-record review, not a compliance screening and not a credit rating.
On-site visits and audits are not part of this service.
No. Recovering funds or disputing orders is outside the service.
No obligation. We read your request and reply with a straight answer.
Tell us what you need to find out and by when. We confirm scope before any work starts.
Request research