Investigations reports should explain their conclusions by addressing objections before they are read by those who will likely object to the conclusions. To address objections, each allegation should be discussed independently, the evidence brought to bear on the issue should be detailed on both sides, and the finding should be expressed in language that is as brief as possible.
We write reports based on investigations that have been conducted. You’re in charge of interviews, evidence, and decisions. The document that has to stand up is our concern.
A decision maker needs relevant jurisdictional facts in making a decision. They do not act on a narrative. The decision maker wants to know which allegation was substantiated, what evidence substantiated it, and the degree of confidence in the finding. Reports that tell the story in a chronological order push that sorting work on the reader, and ultimately, that leads to inconsistent decisions.
Generated investigation reports exhibit an unjustified certainty in their conclusions. The language of findings is conventionally confident, so a model reproduces it: the evidence clearly demonstrates, it is apparent that. Nobody weighed anything, and that confidence is doing work the evidence cannot support.
Having read the full evidence bundle, the writer builds a matrix of allegation versus evidence and drafts each finding from that matrix. The report states ‘not upheld on the available evidence’ where the evidence falls short of the standard, rather than reaching for a presumed stronger option.
The bundle is lengthy and the report is not. What is retained are documents pertinent to a particular allegation, which are cited to aid the reader in identifying such documents, and a brief account of what was taken into consideration and ignored. Anything pertaining to a person which is not pertinent to an allegation is expunged in full.
One rate, whatever the format: $10 per 100 words. You are paying for the writer’s time and judgement, so the price scales with the words rather than with a package tier.
| Typical investigation report | Words | Writing | Fee (1%) | You pay |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Summary report | 1,200 | $120 | $1.20 | $121.20 |
| Standard report | 3,000 | $300 | $3 | $303 |
| In-depth report | 6,000 | $600 | $6 | $606 |
The writer receives 100% of the writing price. Our 1% fee is added on top of it, and 0.5% is donated to tree planting. Full pricing breakdown.
Primary sources wherever they exist — your own data, published research, filings, regulator and industry figures — with secondary reporting used only where nothing better is available. Everything used is listed with links so you can check it.
We write the analysis, label what each figure shows and describe the charts your designer should build, including the takeaway each one has to land. We do not produce finished graphics, so tell us if you need the underlying numbers laid out for a designer.
No. Interviews, evidence gathering and decisions stay with your investigator, HR team or appointed professionals. We write the report based on their output. This allows the writing to be independent of the judgment and usually takes less time.
One writer, one signed confidentiality agreement, and one channel of your choice. Pseudonyms can be inserted in the draft if you wish. Everything you provide is removed at the end of the revision window and it will not be retained as a sample.
Completely. Copyright transfers to you on delivery, with no attribution requirement and no licence back to us. Nothing written for you is resold, repurposed or republished.
Reviews from completed, paid orders in this category.
Three of the competitors are private and their numbers are not public. The report states this explicitly and cites what can be observed, pricing pages, job postings and packaging changes. Because of that, I trust the other parts of the report more.
The final half page explains what the analysis was unable to confirm through public sources. Most vendors tend to hide that, or simply eliminate it. Our partners actually read that section first which is why the report was presented to the client without any changes.
We asked if we could round the figure and be allowed to say that it was approximately ninety percent. The writer came back and said that the data showed eighty-six percent, and asked if we wanted to publish eighty-six percent or tell the story of the gap. We published eighty-six percent. That was the best use of our budget.
We do not ask you to take the no-AI promise on trust. Each draft is run through these platforms and the reports are attached to your delivery email.
Originality.aiAI detection + plagiarism
GPTZeroAI detection
TurnitinAI detection + similarity
CopyleaksAI detection + plagiarism
Winston AIAI detection
ZeroGPTAI detection
SaplingAI detection
Content at ScaleAI detection
Send the brief, get a human draft back within 3 days. No account, no subscription, no AI.
$10 per 100 words · all of it to the writer · 0.5% to trees