A rating is the output of an analytical model
A particular system calculates the risk score. Public descriptions by Chainalysis and TRM Labs mention external labels, counterparty categories and rating rules. The result is thus an interpretation under specified conditions, not a standalone blockchain transaction field.
First establish what the score means in the particular report. Do not turn it into an event probability or an answer about a specific person’s actions without explanation.
Make sure the subjects compared are the same
Check the network, complete address, asset and subject. One report may cover one transaction, another an address history or wider group. Comparing only final figures would then be incomplete.
Record the period, transfer direction and report date. Chainalysis Address Screening describes selected analysis periods and adjustable settings. Determine actual conditions from the documents, rather than assuming them from the service name.
Consider external labels’ source and date
Chainalysis wallet-screening materials describe address attribution and monitoring risk changes. For reports made at different times, check whether external information or its use in scoring changed.
For material labels, establish content, source and status at the analysis date. Absence in one report is not automatically a refutation of another. First establish the information available and each author’s actual checks.
Direct and indirect links have different meanings
Chainalysis publicly distinguishes direct links to labelled entities from links through intermediate transactions. A review must check which link is actually shown and its role in calculation.
An intermediate route does not, without further grounds, mean one person controls every address. Consider scores dependent on analytical rules together with those rules. TRM Labs separately discusses limits of such interpretation.
How to prepare two reports for comparison
Preserve full documents, retrieval times, selected settings and subject identifiers. Highlight specific differences: label categories, periods, amounts, missing transactions or explanations of the same route segment.
Ask specifically which source data and rules caused the discrepancy and whether it affects the conclusion under review. This focuses on reproducible circumstances rather than choosing the more convenient final score.
When a review is useful
A review helps when a report relies materially on a risk rating. Check the subject, method clarity and score’s connection to the conclusion. Any new transaction analysis is scoped separately.
The result should explain discrepancies, confirmed data and limits. Another report does not automatically remove platform restrictions or determine a transaction’s legal status.
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.