Methodology & Data Lineage
Every engagement brief begins with a question about evidence: what do we know, how do we know it, and what would change our assessment if we learned differently.
We define the question before researching the answer.
Standard briefs arrive pre-loaded with assumptions about what the client needs. We spend the first week challenging those assumptions — identifying what information is actually required to make the decision at hand, and separating that from what is merely available.
Not a data collection exercise without prior clarity on what the data is supposed to answer.
Regulatory databases, trade data, public filings — the accessible layer.
We build the desk research layer against a structured data map: what we expect to find, what contradictions we are looking for, and what gaps would indicate a data collection problem versus a genuine absence of evidence.
Not a literature review or a summary of secondary sources without primary-source triangulation.
Primary interviews, on-ground observation, stakeholder network access.
In-country verification is the step that standard market entry research omits most frequently. We conduct primary-source interviews across the regulatory, commercial, and operational layers of each engagement, and we verify claims through independent channels before including them in deliverables.
Not telephone interviews alone. On-ground access is standard for all emerging and frontier market engagements.
Structured comparison across sources to identify real divergence from noise.
The value is not in finding more data — it is in identifying where sources contradict each other and understanding why. Regulatory documents versus enforcement practice. Financial statements versus field-observed capacity. Published timelines versus recent comparables.
Not summary of findings. Structured analysis against the question defined in step one.
Signed report, evidence base, and decision-support framing.
Every deliverable is signed by a named advisor and carries a documented evidence basis. We separate conclusions from evidence and flag where our confidence is limited by data availability. The report answers the original question, not the question we found easiest to answer.
Not a document that requires interpretation. Conclusions are explicit, evidence is cited, limitations are disclosed.
Data Sources
| Source Type | Examples | Our Verification Basis |
|---|---|---|
| Primary Interviews | Regulators, distributors, local partners, counterparties | Cross-referenced ≥2 independent sources; named in engagement file |
| Regulatory Databases | SFDA, NAFDAC, MoHAP, OSS, EU Rapid Alert | Checked against enforcement records and recent comparables |
| Trade & Customs Data | UN Comtrade, WITS, national customs databases | Validated against on-ground channel estimates |
| Court & Public Filings | Company registries, litigation records | Verified independently before inclusion in DD report |
| On-Ground Observation | Site visits, logistics corridor inspection | Fieldwork notes retained in engagement file |
