Actor mapping
Organisations, people, domains, infrastructure, narratives and visible relationships.
DOSSIER 201
Digital intelligence & OSINT
Turn scattered open sources into a structured, sourced reading that supports decisions.
Operational brief360°observed surface
OSINTopen sources
CLEARreporting standard
Operational brief
See what is public. Understand what matters.
Open-source intelligence is not a collection of links. Sources must be qualified, signals contextualised, facts separated from assumptions and uncertainty made visible.
AR / DOSSIER 201INDEPENDENT ANALYSIS
MEASUREMENT WORKSHOP
Six documents do not establish six confirmations
A release repeated by three sites and a register copied by a directory produce six documents but only two provenance chains. Group copies before counting independent confirmations.
AI-generated illustration
Fictional example · no measurement of this site or a client
| Indicator | Calculation or threshold | What the result establishes |
|---|---|---|
| Documents | 6 | Six pages, files or records have been collected. |
| Provenance chains | 2 | Manual grouping identifies only two chains behind the documents. |
| Declared independent chains | 1 | Only one chain is declared independent: corroboration between two independent chains is not established. |
From observation to decision
Name the claim
Break a sentence into testable facts. Two documents may confirm different elements.
Trace the origin
Follow citations, producers and datasets; map repetitions instead of counting domains.
Explain independence
Describe how each chain obtained the information. Distinct origins can still share one initial statement.
References and method
FIELD READING
Make the terrain readable before action.
Useful information has an origin, date, context and confidence level. The system separates facts, signals, assumptions and unknowns to support a proportionate decision.
Illustrative scene.
02 / Intervention areas
Intervention areas
Strategic monitoring
Weak signals, position changes, publications, recruitment and ecosystem movement.
Digital due diligence
Footprint verification, public consistency, visible history and uncertainty zones.
Narrative analysis
Origin, propagation and transformation of messages across search and social systems.
Reputation monitoring
Track results, citations, profiles, semantic change and emerging friction points.
International sourcing
Multilingual research and source comparison to avoid a single information-space bias.
03 / FIELD NOTES
Intelligence situations
OSINT becomes useful when a decision depends on scattered, ambiguous or excessive information.
01ENGAGEMENT
Qualify a counterpart
Understand the public footprint of a person or organisation before committing.
02MARKET
Map a field
Identify actors, alliances, narratives, offers, infrastructure and repositioning signals.
03CRISIS
Build a timeline
Reconstruct visible facts, their sources and propagation before responding.
04MONITORING
Detect change
Observe a stable perimeter and report only genuinely decision-relevant variations.
04 / OUTPUTS
Reporting formats
Depth follows the risk: from an executive note to fully documented mapping.
Executive brief
A reading available in minutes with possible decisions.
Source journal
URL, date, capture, context, reliability and reuse conditions.
Timeline
Ordered events, contradictions and information gaps.
Relationship map
People, organisations, domains, infrastructure and observable links.
Confidence matrix
Confirmed facts, plausible signals, assumptions and unknowns.
Monitoring plan
Sources, queries, frequency, alert thresholds and owners.
WORKING RECORDS
Make the dossier verifiable
Three practical records connecting diagnosis to a traceable decision.
Collection log
Minimum content : Question, URL, stated author, access date, appropriate copy and collection scope.
Check : Can another analyst recover the trace and understand exclusions?
Corroboration matrix
Minimum content : Link each claim to primary sources, dependent repetition, contradictions and confidence.
Check : Do confirmations come from genuinely separate collection?
Relationship map
Minimum content : Entities, roles, alleged link, source, period and confirmed or hypothetical status.
Check : Could a namesake or former relation be mistaken for a current link?
05 / Method
A discipline of evidence
Every conclusion is linked to a source, a confidence level and an observation date.
- 01Precise initial question
- 02Lawful open-source collection
- 03Qualification and cross-checking
- 04Timeline and relationships
- 05Competing hypotheses
- 06Actionable reporting
- 07Preserve provenance
- 08Reassess conclusions
DECISION CHECKS
Decisions to document
Two checks that change the next decision.
An identity remains ambiguous
Compare name, role, date and organisation before merging two traces. Keep namesakes as separate hypotheses until an independent attribute connects them.
One source seems decisive
Return to the original document, record its date and seek independent confirmation. A second source that merely repeats the first adds no evidence.
Two approaches to distinguish
Two approaches to distinguish
The right method depends on the question and the decision it must inform.
One-off research
Answers a bounded question about an entity, document or event. Define scope, sources, stopping date and coverage limits before collection.
Continuous monitoring
Tracks predefined changes with alert thresholds, frequency, owner and retained observations. It is useful only when a person can act on the signal.
Proposed work plan
Adapt this outline to the agreed scope. It describes a proposed method, not a completed mission, measured result or guaranteed schedule. JSON tracking fields are empty.
AI-generated illustration
Prepare before starting
A precise question, known entities, a period and authorized public sources. Separate supplied information from hypotheses requiring verification.
Scope the work
Set identifiers, name variants and exclusions. Approve this scope before collection to avoid investigating a namesake.
Apply the method
Log each record with URL, date and useful passage. Group repetitions of one origin before counting confirmations.
Verify and hand over
Link each conclusion to retained records and contradictions. Have identity matches reviewed before handing over findings.
Pause or revision conditions
Stop a lead without authorized grounds or established identity. No result remains a limitation, never proof of nonexistence.
06 / FAQ
Frequently asked questions
Clear answers on scope, limits, methods and engagement conditions.
Is OSINT legal?
The assignment uses accessible sources within a defined scope and applicable law.
Are sources delivered?
Yes, when they may be disclosed, with date and context.
Can monitoring be continuous?
Yes, using alert thresholds designed to avoid permanent noise.
Do you use private accounts or access?
Not without explicit authorisation. Standard work uses open sources and legitimately provided access.
How are source errors handled?
Through corroboration, provenance, confidence levels and explicit correction when new evidence appears.
Can you investigate anyone?
No. Purpose, proportionality, applicable law and risk to people are examined before acceptance.
Is OSINT analysis legal evidence?
Not automatically. It may guide and document, but evidential value depends on context and procedure.
Methodological references
Official documents explaining methods, review criteria and their limits. These references do not certify the service or guarantee search rankings.
08 / CONTACT
Open a private channel
State the context and objective. You will receive a clear initial reading.
Turn a need into a defined assignment
A few interventions relevant to this topic. Each amount covers the stated reference scope; the quote confirms priorities and overlapping tasks.
Focused OSINT research
Public sources, identifiers and sourced findings.
Entity : 1 · 6 h
From 480 € excl. VAT / 576 € incl. VAT
Preparation and delivery checks
- What to prepare
- Specify the entity, period, territory and decision the research should inform.
- Suggested process
- Find primary sources, record relevant passages and explain contradictions and gaps.
- Delivery to agree
- Agree a sourced summary, a record of documents and limits on conclusions.
- Review for this service
- Link the selected identity to identifiers and document unresolved namesakes.
- Scope boundaries
- Research uses public information; no result remains a documented limitation.
Indicative working scope, to confirm in the quotation.
Actor mapping
Public relationships, confidence levels and reporting.
Ecosystem to scope : 1 · 12 h
From 960 € excl. VAT / 1,152 € incl. VAT
Preparation and delivery checks
- What to prepare
- Specify the entity, period, territory and decision the research should inform.
- Suggested process
- Find primary sources, record relevant passages and explain contradictions and gaps.
- Delivery to agree
- Agree a sourced summary, a record of documents and limits on conclusions.
- Review for this service
- Link each represented relationship to a document, date and explicit qualification.
- Scope boundaries
- Research uses public information; no result remains a documented limitation.
Indicative working scope, to confirm in the quotation.
Timeline & document analysis
Dates, documents, contradictions and evidence limits.
Event / dossier : 1 · 8 h
From 640 € excl. VAT / 768 € incl. VAT
Preparation and delivery checks
- What to prepare
- Specify the entity, period, territory and decision the research should inform.
- Suggested process
- Find primary sources, record relevant passages and explain contradictions and gaps.
- Delivery to agree
- Agree a sourced summary, a record of documents and limits on conclusions.
- Review for this service
- Distinguish event, publication and access dates for each selected document.
- Scope boundaries
- Research uses public information; no result remains a documented limitation.
Indicative working scope, to confirm in the quotation.
Prepare and review a service
Use these notes to scope the request and review delivery. The quotation defines the agreed work, volumes and schedule.
OSINT, monitoring & reputation
AI-generated illustration
Answer a bounded question using public sources and verifiable records.
- What to prepare
- Specify the entity, period, territory and decision the research should inform.
- Suggested process
- Find primary sources, record relevant passages and explain contradictions and gaps.
- Delivery to agree
- Agree a sourced summary, a record of documents and limits on conclusions.
- Scope boundaries
- Research uses public information; no result remains a documented limitation.
DEEPER READING / PRACTICE
Starting from a question rather than a collection
The value of research depends on the connection between the question, the document and the conclusion. Keeping the context is as important as finding the information.
Editorial supplement added on .
Starting situation
A corpus of public sources accumulates without exploitable conclusion. Research gains accuracy when each document is linked to a question, a hypothesis and a verification scope.
Priority checks
Identify entities, periods, territories and facts sought. Identify possible primary sources, secondary repetitions and information that cannot be established with the available corpus.
Interpretation pitfalls
Several publications may have the same origin. Therefore, the number of links does not automatically measure the solidity of a conclusion or the independence of testimony.
Working record to retain
The research file connects question, source, observation, hypothesis and uncertainty. The presentation of the results indicates what is established, what remains plausible and the next verification is useful.
Apply the approach to an initial case
Write first the proposal to verify, then look for the document that can support it directly. Release the useful passage and the information that limits its scope. If a source responds only to a part of the question, keep that contribution and look for a supplement for the other elements instead of forcing a comprehensive conclusion.
Present the result and its limitations
Presentation of the results should enable the way of reasoning. Indicate what has been observed, what has been interpreted and what is still missing. A second reading can then discuss the scope of the word from the same pieces, rather than depend only on the trust given to the editor.
EXAMPLE / READING THE NUMBERS
Count origins rather than repetitions
Fictional data illustrating the method; not client results or measurements of this website.
| Observation | Count | Interpretation |
|---|---|---|
| Articles consulted | 6 | 6 publications identified. |
| Articles repeating one release | 5 | 5 repetitions: one origin. |
| Other documentary origin | 1 | 1 publication based on a distinct record. |
Show the interpretation limit
What these numbers do not prove
Six articles may represent only two origins. Two origins alone establish neither independence nor the truth of every claim: check their records and methods.
PRACTICAL CASE / WORKED EXAMPLE
An abundant corpus depends on a single publication
The example below is pedagogical. It shows how to move from a document to a qualified proposal, preserving the context, the contradictory elements and the information that the research does not yet allow to establish.
Example context
Several pages describe the same relationship between actors. Their consensus seems solid, but all regain an initial announcement without any additional document.
Suggested approach
Back to the origins, compare the formulations and search for the direct parts. Distinguish the dissemination from an autonomous statement and confirmation. Identify the indications that are absent.
Conclusion and next step
The document describes a broadly recovered statement with a common source. The research is ongoing on the unresolved issue instead of adding the repetitions as separate evidence.
Checklist for applying this example
- Write the exact proposal before looking for documentary support.
- Identify the document, the useful passage and its validity period.
- Separate observation, declaration, interpretation and work hypothesis.
- Describe the missing elements and the next relevant search.
Questions for deeper practice
When to stop a collection of sources?
When the available documents answer the question sufficiently or when the new consultations no longer provide a distinct element. Documentation of the limits and tracks still open remains necessary.
How do we deal with a matter that is contrary to the planned conclusion?
Keep it and examine its scope before deciding whether it brings a real contradiction. Compare period, definition, origin and context. The conclusion can be corrected, limited or left open. The file must explain the processing of this piece rather than remove it simply because it does not match the starting hypothesis.
Why distinguish an absence of result and a absence of fact?
A consultation depends on the terms, territory, period and coverage of the source. Its negative outcome first describes this research scope. To conclude broaderly, it is necessary to examine the known variants and limits, and then indicate the additional elements that eventually support an assertion of absence.
DETAILED WORKSHOP / APPLICATION
Building a research around competitive assumptions
This workshop offers a five-step sequence to apply the page labels. The entries, observations and conclusions are kept together in order to facilitate the verification and recovery of the work.
01 / Prepare the necessary information
Formulate the question, the territory, the period and entities. Preparing two plausible explanations and the observations that could distinguish them.
02 / Carry out the approach
Collect the relevant pieces and then qualify origin and independence. Relate each element to the assumptions without forcing its interpretation. Search for documents that could contradict the privileged explanation.
03 / Examine an alternative situation
If the sources converge but depend on the same statement, limit the conclusion. A new autonomous room may be needed to separate the assumptions.
04 / Decide on the next step
Research is exploitable when facts, interpretations and unknown are separated. The collection is stopped or reoriented according to the questions effectively resolved.
05 / Hand over the verification records
Transmit a file question, assumptions, evidence and limits. The abandoned traces are explained when they influence the understanding of the final reasoning.
ANNOTATED WORKING DOCUMENT / REVIEW GRID
A file of assumptions and additional evidence
The document relates questions, assumptions, sources and observations. It retains the contradictory elements and research that would allow to divide the still plausible explanations.
On a small screen, scroll the grid horizontally to read all three columns.
| Observation | Supported interpretation | Next step |
|---|---|---|
| Several subjects support the same proposal. | A documentary convergence can be described according to their origin and scope. | Examine the limits before strengthening the conclusion. |
| Many times it depends on a single ad. | The publication does not constitute so many autonomous confirmations. | Return to the origins and search for independent elements. |
| One piece contradicts the privileged hypothesis. | The reasoning must include this information before concluding. | Compare context and scope and then review or qualify the hypothesis. |
Reviewing the working document
The final check follows the question rather than the volume collected. Excluded traces and important unknown traces are kept when they explain the scope of the conclusion.
REPORTING / EXAMPLE WORDING
Presentation of results: Starting from a question rather than a collection
Point to clarify
A collection must preserve the elements that may contradict the starting hypothesis.
Before handing over
Check that link volume and support force are not confused.
Example of a qualified conclusion
The pieces support the conclusion at the indicated scope. The contradictions, common and unknown origins still useful to the decision are kept in the file.