Examples of Analysis Reports

​

The analytical work produces a range of different reports, but most engagements fall into one of three categories:

 

1. Independent risk assessment (ISO 31000). A structured evaluation of key risks, uncertainties, and exposure factors aligned with ISO 31000:2018. Used internally to inform strategy, client advice, and decision-making. Depending on the scope, this may include analysis of current risks, controls, treatment options, residual risk, and decision trade-offs.
    

2. Analysis of competing hypotheses (ACH). A formal analytical method originating in intelligence analysis that tests multiple, mutually inconsistent hypotheses against the same body of evidence. The method is designed to reduce confirmation bias, expose weak assumptions, and identify which explanations are most consistent or inconsistent with the observable facts when narratives are contested or unstable.
    

3. Systems or root cause analysis (HFACS-based). An integrated pre-event and post-event causal analysis using a Human Factors Analysis and Classification System (HFACS) event-logic tree. This approach maps organisational, supervisory, precondition, and frontline factors into a clear causal chain, shifting analysis away from simplistic “human error” explanations toward systemic causes.
    

 

These engagements result in stand-alone analytical reports and visual models suitable for internal strategy, briefing counsel, or supporting expert opinion. They are not drafted for filing.

​​

​

Why clients invest in independent analysis

 

For lawyers and policy advocates working under fixed-fee or otherwise constrained budgets, the question is not whether independent analysis is intellectually interesting, but whether it is worth reallocating time and money away from internal work.

 

In practice, clients invest in this work for three reasons.

 

It saves senior time and reduces internal stress

 

Complex matters absorb disproportionate senior attention. Partners, counsel, and policy leads often find themselves carrying unresolved questions: Are we missing something? Is this assumption sound? What happens if the narrative shifts?

 

Independent analysis externalises that cognitive load. Instead of repeatedly revisiting the same issues internally, teams receive a structured assessment that clarifies what is known, what is uncertain, and where attention actually needs to be focused. This reduces late-stage surprises, re-drafting, and escalation — all of which are far more expensive than the analysis itself.

 

It introduces a toolset most teams do not have in-house

 

Most legal and policy teams are highly skilled at advocacy, drafting, and persuasion. Far fewer have access to formal analytical methods designed to test narratives under uncertainty.

 

Independent risk assessment allows teams to demonstrate that conduct was reasonable on a risk-assessed basis, that residual risk was low, and that controls were as far as reasonably practicable. This supports arguments such as: harm occurred, but the probability was low, foreseeable controls were in place, and the outcome was idiosyncratic rather than systemic.

 

Analysis of Competing Hypotheses allows teams to show that when all plausible explanations are tested against the evidence, a client’s culpability is not the most consistent explanation — and that alternative hypotheses better fit the observable facts.

 

Systems and root-cause analysis allows advocates to demonstrate that harm arose from institutional or organisational conditions, rather than isolated individual error — a distinction that often matters in inquiries, litigation, and policy reform.

 

These are analytical disciplines, not rhetorical techniques. Most teams do not have the time, distance, or methodological depth to apply them rigorously under pressure.

 

It makes it easier to succeed — and to look credible doing it

 

Independent analysis changes the conversation with decision-makers.

 

Instead of asserting reasonableness, teams can demonstrate it. Instead of arguing which story should be believed, they can show which explanations survive scrutiny. Instead of relying on intuition, they can point to structured evaluation.

 

For clients, the value is clearer reasoning and more defensible outcomes.

For lawyers and advocates, the value is reduced risk, stronger positioning, and professional credibility.

 

In that context, investing approximately $8,000 in independent analysis is rarely an additional cost. It is often cheaper than carrying the risk internally, and far cheaper than discovering too late that a critical assumption was wrong.​

​​

​

​​

Typical Engagements

 

Typical engagements involve law firms and barristers working on complex or high-stakes matters, industry and advocacy organisations engaging policymakers or regulators, and senior advisers or boutique consultancies supporting boards or executives. All engagements are discreet, confidential, and time-boxed.

 

This is not content writing, paralegal drafting, or research assistance. It is senior-level analytical troubleshooting delivered in written form. The value lies in replacing a significant amount of internal executive analysis, clarifying causation and risk, and reducing downstream legal, regulatory, and reputational exposure.

 

Engagements usually commence following a short discussion by call or email to confirm scope and fit. I then prepare a one-page scope and deliverables note setting out the analytical method and fixed fee. Work begins on acceptance of the scope and payment of a mobilisation fee, which is credited against the agreed total fee. The balance is invoiced on delivery. One substantive revision is included.