Red Label Intelligence
Red Label Intelligence

For institutions that cannot afford to be wrong

Counterparty intelligence, computationally validated.

Top-end boutique counterparty intelligence is built on analyst-led collection and human peer review. Reports built to that standard typically take four to six weeks and run $80,000 to $150,000. We apply the same discipline, run our Scenario Flagging Algorithm as an independent reviewer on every draft, and deliver in ten to fifteen business days at a flat $40,000.

Lead: Managing Partner Reference: redlabelintel.com Firm: redlabel.ltd

Two reviewers per engagement

Reconciled before delivery

01 / Analyst reviewer

Managing Partner

  • ·Lead-analyst-led collection
  • ·Source verification, tier labeling
  • ·Network and beneficial-ownership mapping
  • ·Recommendation and gating conditions

02 / Computational reviewer

Scenario Flagging Algorithm

  • ·Twelve scenario lenses applied to every draft
  • ·100,000-sample severity distribution
  • ·Reproducibility seed and run record retained
  • ·Reconciliation log against the analyst draft

Analyst draft · Scenario Flagging Algorithm · reconciliation log retained in the engagement file

Standard fee

$40,000

Flat. No procurement maze.

Delivery

10–15 days

Business days. Conflict checks within 2.

Refresh

30%

Of original fee, on named trigger events.

02

The discipline

Two reviewers on every engagement.

Counterparty intelligence at the top of the market is built on two things: analyst-led collection of primary sources, and a peer reviewer who pushes back on the draft before it goes out. We do both of those. We also add a second reviewer that traditional firms cannot run, which is the firm's Scenario Flagging Algorithm, a structured analysis executed against every analyst draft before delivery.

The model finds gaps in what the analyst collected. The analyst finds places where the model has overreached or hallucinated. Findings the model surfaces that the analyst did not get to are either verified into the report, kept and labeled unverified, or thrown out with the reasoning logged. The reconciliation lives in the engagement file with the rest of the audit trail. In practice, a human analyst running against an independent computational reviewer produces a more rigorous review than two analysts working in sequence against the same evidence.

Every report ships with a 100,000-sample severity distribution. The reproducibility seed and run record are retained in the engagement file, so counsel can request the underlying run and verify the analysis directly if a finding is ever challenged. The reconciliation discipline catches material risk that a single analyst, no matter how good, will sometimes leave understated. The specimen below is a working example. On a subject already designated by six Western sanctions regimes, the recommendation against engagement is mechanical. What the algorithm adds is a quantified read on severity that disagrees with the analyst's recommendation tone, and a discipline that puts the disagreement on the page rather than reconciling it away.

03

What we do not do

Discipline boundaries.

We do not write pitch decks for clients and we do not run reputation management work of any kind. Engagements aimed at journalists, critics, or political opponents are not work we take, including under reframings such as bias assessments, source vetting, or pre-publication scrutiny. We have heard the reframings. Engagements that would compromise independence in fact or in appearance get turned away at the conflict-check stage.

These are discipline boundaries and not preferences. They shape which firms refer to us regularly and which never call back. We are aware of the trade-off and we are comfortable with it. The clients who care about the discipline are usually the ones the discipline is for.

Conflict checks complete within two business days of inquiry. Any prior engagement involving the subject or named related parties is disclosed before scoping.

Specimen RL-DD-2026-0511-006

A methodology specimen on Roman Abramovich.

Catalog entry

The specimen we publish is a 65-page counterparty intelligence report on Roman Abramovich, prepared as a methodology demonstration on a public-record subject. No client commissioned the work, the subject did not participate, and every finding rests on open-source intelligence as of the report date.

Six Western jurisdictions designated Abramovich after March 2022, so the case against any new engagement is mechanical. The work the report does is elsewhere. The asset and entity map runs across the six designating jurisdictions. The regulated wind-down path for hypothetical pre-2022 exposure is on the page. And the divergence between the analyst's recommendation tone and the Scenario Flagging Algorithm, which reads the engagement as substantially more dangerous than the analyst's wording alone would suggest, is disclosed rather than smoothed over.

65
Pages
23
Numbered sections
6
Sanctioning jurisdictions
54%
Modeled bad-outcome probability

PDF, 2.8 MB. Sixty-five pages across twenty-three numbered sections, watermarked as a methodology demonstration. Source tiering and a countersigned peer review block carried through. Publicly available without restriction.

05

To begin

A confidential conversation.

Office of the Managing Partner

Red Label Intelligence

First conversations are confidential and carry no obligation on either side. Engagement letters get scoped to the specific decision in front of you rather than to a retainer. If you are working on a timeline shorter than ten business days, mention that early so we can tell you whether we can help.

Send a confidential inquiry