The research question
An unfamiliar supplier sends a professional brochure, registration document, and urgent invoice. Some details do not match. The next step is to identify the disputed facts and test them. A useful research record avoids both premature reassurance and unsupported accusations, while showing the buyer what still needs resolution.
List the claims that matter to the transaction
Begin with a small claim register: legal company name, registration number, trading name, operating location, products offered, and the relationship of the person contacting you to the business. Beside each claim, record the evidence supplied and the independent material you would need to assess it.
The US Federal Trade Commission warns that fake invoices can resemble bills for products or services a business ordered. It recommends clear purchase and invoice approval procedures and careful examination of invoices. Those warnings support checking the transaction itself rather than relying on how convincing the stationery looks. FTC small-business scams guide
Distinguish discrepancy from explanation
Use neutral wording: 'the address on the invoice differs from the current registry record' is more precise than 'fake address'. Ask whether the difference concerns a registered office, an operating site, an earlier address, or another entity. Preserve the response and assess it against the available evidence.
Apply the same discipline to names. A translated trading name and a registered local-language name may require careful matching. Do not close the match solely because the names look similar. Equally, do not describe a difference as deception without establishing what each name represents.
Choose a follow-up that can answer the question
Hypothetical example: a supplier says it manufactures goods at a particular location, but the supplied document identifies a trading company. The buyer asks who operates the facility and requests supporting information. If uncertainty remains material, the parties discuss a scoped site verification. The assignment specifies which observable facts would answer the question rather than asking for a general declaration that the supplier is legitimate.
An online search might locate background material; registry research might clarify identity; fieldwork might document what can be observed at a location. Select among these based on the unresolved claim. Do not commission reputational enquiries simply to fill a report when suitable knowledgeable sources are unlikely to exist.
Make the result usable by the next reviewer
Close each claim with one of three descriptions: supported by identified evidence, contradicted by identified evidence, or unresolved within the scope. Include dates and source references. Explain any material limitation, including inability to establish that a document belongs to the subject.
Finally, state the question requiring a purchasing decision or further review. A report organised this way lets a business respond proportionately instead of turning an untested warning sign into a permanent label.
What to take away
- Check specific claims about the company and transaction.
- Use neutral discrepancy wording until evidence supports a conclusion.
- Match follow-up research to the unresolved question.