What the review examines
The subject is the specific report, questions posed to its author and materials supporting the answers. The reviewer assesses whether the subject was defined correctly, methods described and reasoning traceable from source information to conclusion.
The task is not necessarily to find faults or endorse the client’s position. Correct points count alongside defects. Before work, identify contested conclusions, page numbers and the circumstances they affect.
Materials required
Provide the report in full: introduction, analysis, answers, tables, diagrams, links and available appendices. Include the original task or questions and the exports and data cited where possible. A single image of the conclusions page usually cannot reveal the full reasoning.
List missing materials. Establish in advance what the available set can check and what needs more information. Passwords, seed phrases and private keys are not needed.
Checking transactions and source details
First compare network, asset, full addresses, transaction identifiers and period; verify the token’s network-specific identifier. Then compare amounts, units, fees, timestamps and actual execution.
A transaction identifier does not reveal its entire execution result. Ethereum documentation, for example, separately describes fields and execution. Check what the author used to confirm the transfer and whether they merely located a record.
Checking routes, labels and links to a person
A diagram may combine direct network records, service labels and address-clustering conclusions. Assess these bases separately. For material segments, check the supporting transactions, external sources and assumptions.
TRM Labs publicly treats address clustering and risk ratings as analytical tools requiring interpretation. Check whether risk scores, nearby addresses or a service name have been turned into an unconditional claim about a person without further grounds.
Can material checks be reproduced?
Assess whether sources, access dates, calculation rules and limits are stated. Where a conclusion depends on an export, retain its original file and retrieval settings. External labels need source and status at the examination date.
Using a paid system is not itself a defect. Important results must explain their origin, method and role in conclusions. If a necessary check cannot be reproduced, the reviewer explains why and the assessment limit.
Which criticisms are material?
A criticism needs a reference to the statement, check description, discrepancy and impact. A caption typo and examining the wrong asset matter differently. Not every presentation error justifies revisiting all technical answers.
Ask whether correcting the defect would change the conclusion. State if data are insufficient to answer. A categorical denial without verifiable grounds does not strengthen a review.
What the Customer receives
The result is a written analysis describing the report, materials, checks, comments and limits. It must show what is confirmed, what needs clarification and which conclusions lack sufficient technical grounds.
Re-examining a large transaction set is agreed separately. Reviewing an existing document and independently examining new data serve different tasks. Review content follows the checks; no particular dispute outcome can be promised in advance.
Sources and notes
Public materials for checking technical statements. A specific transaction is assessed using its data and the documents provided.
Start with the task
Describe the situation, materials available and question to be answered.