- 01 · Presentation · C6Claim in the presentation
"No transfer is permitted before the stated restriction date."
- 02 · Executed document · C5Term in the side letter
An executed side agreement permits an earlier release after an undefined liquidity event.
- 03 · Record requestedRelease authority
The illustrative file does not establish who may authorize the earlier release.
- Decision impactCommittee conclusion
The stated restriction should not be relied on until the conflicting release terms and authority record are resolved.
Mandate 01 · Deal Evidence Review
Test the evidence behind the decision before capital moves.
For investors, family offices, strategic buyers and advisers with a live digital-asset or selected AI decision. Your team owns the diligence and the investment judgment. Mjolnir is used when one material claim should be tested by a reviewer who is not sponsoring, selling or executing the transaction. You receive a dated, source-linked record of what the evidence supports, contradicts or leaves unresolved.
For
Professional investors, family offices, strategic buyers and advisers with a live digital-asset or selected AI decision · no retail mandates
Mandate boundary
The commissioning buyer or adviser is the client; a subject cannot commission a buyer-side review of itself. The work supports the client's diligence and is not an investment recommendation, legal opinion, financial audit, technical assurance, rating, certification or approval.
Why a separate review
Every live deal has advocates. The evidence test should not.
Mjolnir works for the commissioning buyer or adviser on a fixed scope. Under this mandate, the desk has no role in selling or completing the transaction. We test one material claim against the available record and return a dated account of what held, what did not and what remains open. The investment judgment stays with the client.
The mandate also adds temporary, principal-led capacity when the internal team is fully allocated. Mjolnir takes one defined evidence question from scope to dated record, saving senior time for the decision itself without adding permanent headcount.
Worked example
A claim can fail because the sources do not agree.
Illustrative composite. Fictional diligence example. Not client work, not a live issuer and no assessment has been issued.
How the record is used
One record for the decisions that follow.
The client retains the investment judgment. The review gives the commissioning team a dated record for committee review, management challenge and the next diligence decision.
- 01
Committee review
Put supported findings, contradictions, limitations and decision implications before the committee in one dated record.
- 02
Management challenge
Return contradictions and missing evidence to management as precise, source-linked questions.
- 03
Next-diligence conditions
Turn unresolved items into confirmations, conditions or specialist work for the client to consider.
Process
The question, evidence cut-off and decision lens are agreed before analysis begins.
- 01
Scope
Agree the decision question, available record, evidence cut-off, materiality threshold and timetable.
- 02
Reconcile
Test representations against executed documents, financial and operational records, on-chain evidence where relevant, market evidence and reliable public sources.
- 03
Question
Send contradictions and missing evidence for response, then record the answers and items that remain open.
- 04
Issue
Tie each material finding to its source and issue the dated review to the commissioning client.
Selected specialist scopes
The scope follows the decision and the evidence it depends on.
Treasury, stablecoin and counterparty work can cover reserves and redemption, custody, banking and settlement dependencies, control, concentration and operational failure scenarios.
Transaction work can cover ownership, transferability, material rights, treasury flows, custody dependencies, governance and the mechanics represented to the buyer.
AI-company work can cover revenue and customer evidence, data and IP rights, product-performance testing provenance, third-party model and infrastructure dependencies, unit economics, governance and material commercial agreements.
The work does not provide a code audit, penetration test, model-safety assessment, technical assurance, underwriting approval, rating, valuation or legal opinion, investment advice or a guarantee of future conduct.
Fit
A strong fit usually includes:
- a live investment, acquisition, partnership or counterparty decision
- a defined company, project, asset or counterparty
- material claims that can be stated and tested
- relevant evidence available or obtainable
- a timetable that permits the agreed work
Not a fit
This mandate is not available for:
- retail decisions
- a subject seeking to endorse itself
- general market research without a live decision
- requests for code, model-safety or security assurance
- requests for underwriting approval, placement, legal, audit, rating, valuation or investment conclusions
- a deadline that does not permit the agreed evidence work
Engagement options
Deal Evidence Review scopes and fees.
The fees below correspond to the stated scope boundaries. Any extension to the decision question, review modules or evidence cut-off is agreed in writing before work begins.
01 · Engagement
Focused Deal Evidence Review
Who this is for
An investor, family office, strategic buyer or adviser with one live decision and one defined question.
You receive
- One dated Deal Evidence Review
- Decision question, evidence cut-off and limitations
- Claim-to-evidence register with supported, contradicted, unresolved and unverifiable findings
- Material ownership, rights or transaction-mechanics schedule where relevant
- Open questions and proposed next-diligence steps
- Evidence appendix, management Q&A log and 60-minute readout
Scope boundary
One live decision and one defined question. The evidence cut-off and materiality threshold are agreed before analysis begins.
02 · Engagement
Expanded Deal Evidence Review
Who this is for
A wider investment, acquisition, partnership or counterparty decision requiring several agreed evidence workstreams.
You receive
- One dated expanded review and executive findings record
- Everything included in the Focused Deal Evidence Review
- Three to five agreed workstreams covering the material decision risks
- Management Q&A and contradiction register
- Evidence appendix and specialist questions requiring separate advice
- Working session with the commissioning client
Scope boundary
One transaction and three to five agreed workstreams. The review domains, evidence cut-off and materiality threshold are fixed at intake.
Describe the decision and the evidence question you need tested.
Provide the decision, the claim that matters and the relevant timetable. We will confirm fit, likely scope and the document-sharing process before requesting sensitive materials.
No sensitive files required