Separate On-Chain Fact from Analytical Inference

Core idea

How findings are presented matters as much as the findings themselves. A report must be reproducible, a second investigator following your documented steps should reach the same conclusion. The key discipline is separation: distinguish on-chain fact (the blockchain recorded this transaction) from analytical inference (this transaction was likely made by this entity). Both are legitimate but must be clearly labelled and supported by documented reasoning.

When to use

Stage 5, and any time you write an investigation report destined for court, compliance, or journalism, where opposing counsel will scrutinise every methodological assumption.

Avoid when

Presenting probabilistic clustering as if it were provable on-chain fact, or omitting the limits of your evidence. Explicitly document what the evidence does NOT prove, courts respect this and it preempts challenge.

Example

Label “the blockchain recorded this transaction” as direct on-chain fact, but “this transaction was likely made by this entity” as inference from heuristics; state every tool and version used, assign a confidence level to each attribution claim, and attach a full chain of custody for all digital and OSINT evidence.

Related

The 5-Stage Investigation Process, Wallet Clustering and Heuristics, Crypto Investigation Glossary