What people usually ask before the scope.

By the boundary, written into the scope letter: the relationship is declared on the first page, the fee does not depend on the conclusion, and the evidence prevails over the interest of whoever commissioned it. The opinion on the group follows the same yardstick as the opinion on third parties — and the third-party test applies to both.

No. It is technical audit and fact validation: what is claimed about a development, a harvest, a resource, a platform, a team or a protocol, confronted with the evidence. Financial statements have their own auditor; when the opinion touches on numbers, it treats them as a claim to verify, not as an accounting opinion.

What was claimed and not yet exercised. It is not a judgment: it is a state. The assumed stays named in the opinion so no one confuses it with verified — and so it is known exactly what is missing to cross the boundary.

The scope letter arrives within three business days after the initial conversation. The opinion's timeline is defined in it, in writing, according to the object — and it is the timeline that is kept.

The fee is set with the scope, before starting, and does not change with the conclusion. There is no proposal without a scope: a price with no bounded object would be the work's first unverified claim.

The signed opinion, with each claim classified, the evidence trail attached, the caveats explicit and the recommendations. And a reading meeting.

A named technical lead, with the relationship declared. An opinion without a name is not an opinion.

Yes. Full confidentiality, processing in accordance with the LGPD, data stored on servers in Brazil. The Privacy Policy names each operator.

Yes. The scope can be narrow, as long as it is closed. What is not in the scope is stated as out of it — never presumed.

It prevails. It is in the letter, before the signature.