A red flag is a reason to ask, not a verdict. Public records and a company's online footprint produce patterns that can appear in a problem transaction and also in an ordinary small business. This page explains which patterns we look for and how the report keeps a flag from being read as a conclusion.
We read the registry entry, its recorded changes, and the supplier's online presence for patterns that would make a careful buyer ask something. Each flag is written with what the record shows, the ordinary explanation, the less comfortable one, and the question that would separate them. You decide how much weight each deserves for your order.
No obvious discrepancy found in reviewed sources is a possible result and is reported as exactly that. It is not a clearance.
One change can be routine. A sequence of them within a short span is noted with dates, as is a mismatch with the history the website tells.
A shared address is not itself a fault. The flag says only that the address cannot support a statement about premises.
Recorded company roles are reported as the register shows them, with a note where the register publishes few details. Individuals are not searched beyond the register entry.
A recorded activity far from the goods offered is listed; classifications are broad, so it is a question, not a charge.
Filing dates and status as the register shows them are reported in the register's own wording.
What the record shows, with the source and the date read.
So a reader sees the benign reading before the worrying one.
Phrased so you can put it to the supplier in writing and judge the answer.
Records are retrospective and formal. They do not show how a company behaves toward customers.
Unrecorded complaints, informal payment problems and reputational matters are outside what we read.
This is not a sanctions, PEP or anti-money-laundering check, and its absence from a report should not be read as such a result.
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 a question is warranted. The report gives you the question.
The report says no obvious discrepancy was found in the reviewed sources and lists which sources those were.
No. Public commentary about a company is outside this review, and individuals are not profiled.
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