Before you commit to the case, know the number.

A quantified-loss screen from the documents your prospective client already holds: the damages figure, computed across defensible limitations-bounded windows, against comparators justified by asset class, risk profile, and mandate — the two levers these cases actually turn on. Days, not months. A fraction of an expert retainer.

What the screen quantifies

Fee drag against mandate-consistent alternatives, including share-class differentials the account qualified for all along.
Performance deviation measured against the instrument's own objectives — not a hindsight index — with the comparator's justification documented.
Concentration, churn, and conflict patterns — proprietary products, revenue arrangements, transaction activity inconsistent with the stated strategy.
Windowing — losses computed across multiple limitation-period assumptions, each stated, so the number survives the first thing opposing counsel will attack.

What you receive

A written screen: the quantified exposure under each windowing assumption, the comparator rationale, the documents relied on, and — stated with equal clarity — the weaknesses. When the number is small or the conduct defensible, the screen says so plainly. A screen that never says "decline this one" would be worthless to you; ours does, and we expect to publish how often.

Intended uses: intake triage before committing expert budget, demand-letter support, early mediation posture. Work is performed as litigation-support consulting at counsel's direction; we are analysts, not testifying experts, and your retained expert inherits organized, computation-ready workpapers.

See a sample screen

We've prepared a sample on a redacted, public-record fact pattern — the number, the windows, the comparator table, the kill-list. Request it below and judge the method on its merits.