First define the review subject
One report may address transfer confirmation, asset movement, a service link, account ownership and valuation. Each needs different source data. List contested conclusions beside the question answered. This shows whether the report examines the relevant fact or substitutes a related one.
For example, a transfer to an address and a credit to a specific exchange user need different grounds. The first uses network records; the second needs information linking address, exchange credit and account. A route diagram alone does not establish this link.
Check the source details
Compare the network, full addresses, transaction identifiers, period and asset identifier. A token ticker alone is insufficient: check its contract address or another network-specific identifier. Identical names do not mean the same asset was examined.
Next check status and actual execution. Finding a hash does not replace analysing the transfer. Smart-contract networks require examining calls and execution results and comparing explorer information with the transaction itself. Check amounts with their units and decimal places.
Separate network records from assumptions
A direct transfer record, address clustering and naming an owner have different evidential bases. The author must explain which links are directly in the data, which are analytical and which rely on external materials. For each external label, source, retrieval date and supporting information matter.
Pay particular attention to mixed inflows, bulk payouts and internal service operations. Describe any allocation rule for commingled funds and explain its effect on the route and final amount.
Assess whether the check can be repeated
Another specialist must understand the source data and steps leading to the result. Check transaction tables, links or record identifiers, diagram notes, tool descriptions and data retrieval dates. Coloured arrows without the corresponding transaction list do not adequately explain a route.
Record missing source materials as a limitation. A missing appendix does not automatically invalidate a conclusion: first identify the statements that cannot be checked and their importance to the answer.
What to provide for a review
Provide the full report, appendices, questions and available source materials. A list of specific doubts with page and transaction references helps. Review may confirm some conclusions and identify defects in others; the client’s position does not predetermine the result.
A review describes technical defects, their grounds and effect on conclusions. Rechecking a substantial transaction volume may require a separate examination. Format, scope and deliverable are agreed after reviewing the materials.
Start with the task
Describe the situation, materials available and question to be answered.