Turn the background check into specific questions
Confirm the counterparty’s company name and identifier, then list the required dates, director or member information and sources. Separate supported facts, missing evidence and conflicts. Similar names or a historical filing do not establish current facts.
Separate filing checks from other investigations
Retrieval and extraction organise selected filing records. Those records alone do not establish operations, solvency, creditworthiness, sanctions exposure or transaction safety. Define the additional evidence and review needed before selecting further professional work.
Choose evidence for the question you need to answer
Select the questions relevant to the transaction before requesting documents. Use this table with the procurement or transaction owner to assign filing checks, missing evidence and questions that require separate judgment.
Scroll sideways to see all columns; focus the table and use arrow keys on a keyboard.
| Pre-transaction question | Initial check | What it does not establish | Next action |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the contracting party the same company? | Full names and identifiers on the contract, quote and company records | Matching names do not authenticate payment instructions | Ask the transaction owner to resolve discrepancies and retain the response |
| Do the records cover the relevant date? | Filing type, record date, provenance and missing pages | An old NAR1 does not establish current operations or creditworthiness | Specify the missing date or pages and obtain further material |
| Which directors are recorded for the relevant date? | Relevant annual, incorporation and change records; retain names and pages | A historical name does not establish current office or transaction authority | Obtain missing personnel pages or change records for the owner to review |
| Who is recorded as a direct holder? | Complete member schedules, share class, holding and record date | Recorded holdings alone do not establish beneficial ownership or control | Obtain separate records for corporate holders; leave unknown layers open |
| Can the counterparty perform or pay on time? | Define the financial or performance question | Extraction of company filings alone cannot answer it | Have the owner arrange additional evidence and appropriate review |
Worked procurement case: the quote, contract and filing differ
All names and documents in this procurement exercise are fictional. The quote says “Harbour Supplies”, the contract says “Harbour Supplies Limited”, an attached NAR1 is two years old, and a payment instruction names another recipient. Neither merge them automatically nor label the supplier fraudulent. Separate the questions first.
First establish whether quote and contract identify the same legal entity, retaining full names, identifiers and sources. Second, identify what the historical filing can support for the relevant date. Third, route payment-instruction identity and authority through the transaction owner’s established confirmation process; NAR1 extraction does not authenticate it.
The useful output is a three-issue register, not a low-risk badge. For each issue record the discrepancy, supported observation, missing response and owner. Link subsequent explanations to the original question so another reviewer can see why it arose and how it was addressed.
Choose the next action for incomplete identity or dated evidence
With only a trading name, abbreviation or signature, seek the contract heading, full legal name or supplied identifiers first. Keep similar candidates separate and ask the transaction owner to confirm the match. Do not retrieve a full pack for the closest-looking name by default.
Historical documents can still support dated observations about names, addresses or holders. Mark which current questions they do not answer and specify the missing date, role or pages. Additional retrieval should follow the transaction question rather than a belief that more files are automatically better.
An unresolved conflict can be delivered as “collection completed; discrepancy unresolved”, not a safety conclusion or accusation. Missing evidence differs from evidence of absence: an excerpt without member pages establishes neither the presence nor absence of a particular holder.
Write a one-page evidence brief
Start with the task, such as matching the contracting entity to the supplied records, and inventory the dated sources. Structure the brief as observations, open questions and next actions. The transaction owner should see who needs to resolve what, rather than another narrative retelling of every PDF.
A fictional summary might state: “D-01 and D-02 use different names; identifier matching awaits the owner. Historical NAR1 D-03 supports dated observations, not the current position alone. Recipient-name issue I-03 is assigned to the transaction owner’s confirmation process.” Each sentence links to a source or issue.
Before handover, check entity matching, date scope, sourced findings, issue owners and revision history. The brief helps someone understand the pack and arrange follow-up. It does not make the transaction decision or replace credit or other professional investigation.
Frequently asked questions
Does the Reviewed plan include a full background check?
No. Reviewed checks agreed fields against the source. Cross-document investigations, historical research and full due diligence require separate work.