What a Reputational Due Diligence Report Contains

An Integri report is therefore not simply a collection of search results or a dossier of everything found about a person or organisation. It is a dated, scoped and evidence-linked record of an assessment carried out for a defined purpose.

The exact structure differs between Verify, Pre-Engagement Due Diligence and Public Profile Readiness, because the three services answer different questions. The core disciplines — scope, evidence, traceability, context, conclusion and limitations — remain recognisable across them.

The control block: identifying the report and its boundaries

A report should first tell the reader exactly what document they are looking at.

For Verify, the report opens with a control block recording the report reference and version, assessment date, assessment period, commissioning organisation, subject, role or appointment, agreed scope, report reliance period and overall conclusion.

Those fields perform different functions.

The report reference identifies the particular assessment. The report version distinguishes one issued version from a later corrected or formally reissued copy. The assessment date records the point at which the material was assessed, while the assessment period defines the period examined.

The agreed scope records the boundary of the commission rather than leaving the reader to assume what was or was not examined.

Other Integri report types use corresponding control information appropriate to their purpose. Public Profile Readiness, for example, records the preparation purpose or type of role rather than an organisational appointment decision.

Scope and assessment basis

The report then explains the question the assessment was intended to answer.

This matters because a finding has little useful significance without knowing the purpose and scope against which it was assessed.

A scope section may identify the relevant role or engagement, assessment period, source boundary and any commission-specific inclusions or exclusions.

It should also make clear what kind of material the assessment used.

Verify works from publicly accessible material within the agreed scope. Public Profile Readiness works from publicly accessible and reasonably discoverable material within its recorded scope. Pre-Engagement Due Diligence may also use agreed client-supplied material alongside publicly or legitimately accessible information.

Client-supplied information does not become established fact merely because a client supplied it.

For a fuller explanation of how scope, attribution, corroboration and proportionality operate before material reaches a report, see How Public-Source Reputational Due Diligence Works: Evidence, Scope and Proportionality.

Findings: what the evidence actually establishes

The findings section is where the report moves from research to assessment.

A useful finding needs more than a description of something discovered online. It needs to show the evidential basis for the matter being reported and explain why that matter is relevant to the particular commission.

In a Verify report, each reportable finding identifies the material on which it rests, its significance and the assessment basis applied to it.

Verify uses HIGH, MEDIUM and LOW to classify the significance of individual findings. These are not overall risk ratings and do not describe the person as a whole.

Public Profile Readiness uses a different structure. Reportable findings contain their evidence, context, assessment basis and preparation relevance. Matters that do not meet the threshold for a reportable finding may instead be recorded as practical observations.

Practical observations are not simply lower-grade adverse findings. They identify contextual or factual matters that the client may usefully be aware of without treating them as reportable concerns.

Pre-Engagement Due Diligence is different again. Material representations are assessed against the evidence, with additional material findings recorded where relevant.

The common principle is that the report should show the reader the route from evidence to assessment rather than simply presenting an unexplained conclusion.

Sources and evidence traceability

A finding should be capable of being traced back to the material on which it rests.

Integri's published Verify reports therefore contain a source schedule. The schedule identifies the source, relevant publication information, when it was accessed and the finding for which it was used.

The published Public Profile Readiness sample also contains a source schedule linking the assessment back to its underlying material.

This serves two purposes.

First, it allows the reader to understand what evidence actually supports a finding.

Second, it separates evidence from discovery. A search result or research tool may have led to the source, but the reportable proposition rests on the underlying reviewable material.

Conclusions are different across the three routes

An overall conclusion summarises what the assessment established within its scope. It does not replace the client's own decision.

The terminology differs deliberately between the three Integri routes.

Verify

Verify uses three conclusions: CLEAR, REVIEW and CONCERN.

CLEAR means that no material reputational risk requiring client attention was identified within the agreed scope as at the assessment date.

REVIEW means that one or more material findings require client consideration, clarification or contextual judgement before the organisation proceeds with its own decision.

CONCERN means that one or more well-supported findings present a serious material governance or reputational concern within the agreed scope.

These are conclusions about the assessment. They are not determinations of the person's suitability or fitness for the role.

Public Profile Readiness

Public Profile Readiness uses CLEAR and CONCERN.

The service is not assessing the client for suitability.

CLEAR means that no reportable finding requiring specific preparation was identified within the agreed scope as at the assessment date. A CLEAR report may still contain practical observations.

CONCERN means that one or more reportable findings were identified that warrant specific preparation before the relevant appointment, selection or scrutiny process.

CONCERN does not establish wrongdoing and does not advise the individual whether to proceed with an application.

Pre-Engagement Due Diligence

Pre-Engagement Due Diligence uses four professional outcomes:

CORROBORATED — the material identity, affiliations, authority and representations examined are sufficiently corroborated with no material unresolved matter.

CLARIFICATION REQUIRED — meaningful assessment is possible, but a specific material matter remains unresolved and the evidence does not justify an adverse conclusion.

MATERIAL CONCERN — reliable evidence establishes a material contradiction, inconsistency, adverse fact or pattern capable of affecting the engagement decision.

INSUFFICIENT BASIS FOR ASSESSMENT — the available evidence is insufficient to reach a defensible overall assessment of the central proposition.

The last outcome is particularly important. An inability to establish enough evidence to reach a conclusion is not automatically an adverse finding.

The conclusion terminology therefore reflects the purpose of each service rather than imposing one common rating system across three different kinds of commission.

What happens when something remains unresolved?

Good due diligence does not require every question to end in certainty.

Evidence can be incomplete. Sources can conflict. A material representation may be incapable of full corroboration. A reported allegation may remain unresolved.

Where that happens, the report should preserve the uncertainty rather than convert it into a firmer conclusion than the evidence supports.

This can appear in different ways depending on the service: as an unresolved matter, a matter requiring clarification, an evidential limitation or, in PEDD, an INSUFFICIENT BASIS FOR ASSESSMENT outcome where the central proposition cannot defensibly be determined.

Recording what could not be established can therefore be as important as recording what was found.

Client considerations, preparation and next steps

Some reports identify what the client may need to consider after reading a finding.

That does not mean Integri makes the underlying decision.

In Verify, client considerations and next steps appear where a proportionate client-side action follows from an identified finding. Such action may include seeking clarification from the subject, verifying a material fact through the organisation's own lawful process, considering an applicable governance policy, obtaining independent legal or specialist advice or documenting the organisation's own decision rationale.

The controlled Verify structure makes this section conditional rather than mandatory; a CLEAR report does not need an artificial recommendations section simply for visual consistency.

Public Profile Readiness instead focuses on preparation. A report may identify something the individual should be prepared to explain or contextualise. It does not instruct the client to delete, suppress or conceal lawful public material.

PEDD provides evidence for an engagement decision, but the commissioning organisation itself decides whether and how to proceed.

Currency, limitations and reliance period

Every assessment is a point-in-time record.

The assessment date records the factual snapshot: the position assessed at that point.

The reliance period answers a different question: for how long the report should continue to be relied upon for the relevant decision.

Across Verify, Pre-Engagement Due Diligence and Public Profile Readiness, an Integri report should not be relied upon for a decision, engagement or scrutiny process taking place more than 90 days after issue without a further assessment.

The common 90-day rule was deliberately aligned across all three assessment services.

That is an Integri reliance rule. It is not presented as a universal legal or industry standard.

A report also cannot establish that no other relevant material exists. Public information changes, new material can emerge and existing information can be corrected or overtaken by later events.

Advisory boundaries

An Integri report is advisory.

It does not determine that a person is suitable, fit or appropriate for a role. It does not certify compliance. It does not replace statutory or regulated checks that may be required.

Verify does not tell an organisation whether to appoint or reject someone.

Public Profile Readiness does not predict whether the client will secure an appointment.

Pre-Engagement Due Diligence does not replace legal advice, regulatory or statutory due diligence, KYC or AML compliance, sanctions screening or clearance, credit assessment, statutory vetting, regulated investigation or another legal, regulatory or professional check applicable to the proposed engagement.

The report should therefore be understood as one structured evidential input into a wider human decision.

Versioning, review and authorisation

A professional report also needs an auditable identity.

Verify reports use both a report reference and a version number so that a later corrected or formally reissued copy cannot be mistaken for an earlier version.

Every Integri assessment is reviewed and authorised by Integri before issue. The settled public position deliberately does not imply that the same individual necessarily performs every stage of the work.

Published Verify reports conclude with an authorisation section recording the issue of the report.

Together with the control block, source schedule and assessment date, that gives the report a traceable documentary identity rather than leaving it as an informal research note.

See complete sample reports

The clearest way to understand the report format is to read a complete example.

Integri does not currently publish a complete sample Pre-Engagement Due Diligence report.

Related reading

How Public-Source Reputational Due Diligence Works: Evidence, Scope and Proportionality
How information becomes sufficiently attributable, evidenced, contextualised and proportionate to enter an assessment.

Reputational Due Diligence vs Background Checks, Social Media Screening and Adverse Media Checks
How the purpose, scope and output of reputational due diligence differ from other forms of checking and screening.

Reputational Due Diligence
The category overview and the three Integri assessment routes.