You send the source pack. You get back a drafted document.

You have a corridor question, a folder of primary records, and a deadline. Send me the pack and the question. Within 48 hours you get one drafted document in the format donors and development banks expect, with every claim linked to the record it came from and a written list of what the sources do not cover.

Not legal, financial, compliance, sanctions, investment, or insurance advice. It reports what the sources support, not whether a claim is true in the world. Human review is required before any commercial action.

Send a pack and a question · Read a worked sample first

One document, six types

What is inside every document

A claim-to-source line for every statement

You can check any sentence against the record it came from without rereading the pack.

What the sources do not support

Gaps are written down as gaps. The draft does not smooth over a missing document with careful wording.

Source conflicts named, not averaged

When an association figure, a ministry figure, and an operator figure disagree, all three appear with the disagreement stated.

What to obtain next

A short list of the specific documents that would close the biggest gaps, so the next request to the counterparty is precise.

A named person behind it

I review the draft before it reaches you and I put my name to it. Agents do the drafting and the checking; the sign-off is mine.

A file you can use

Word or print-ready PDF, in your section structure and terminology if you send a template.

What this is not

It produces documents, not scores. There is no readiness rating, no traffic-light verdict, and no go or no-go recommendation. Those calls are yours, and a number would only hide the reasoning you need to see.

It does not verify whether a claim is true in the world. It reports what your sources support and where they fall short.

It does not go looking for sources on its own. It works from the pack you send, plus public primary records where you ask for them.

It is not advice, and it is not a substitute for counsel, due diligence, or a financing decision.

A worked sample, on public records

The Aktau Port bankability screen is a first cut built on two public primary records. It shows what the signed financing package proves, what stays open for the reviewer, one source conflict written out rather than smoothed over, and the claim-to-source audit behind it.

It is illustrative: public sources, not client work, and not financing advice. It is there so you can judge the shape of the output before sending anything of your own.

What I need from you

The 48 hours run from a complete pack. If the pack is missing something the document depends on, you hear that inside the same window instead of receiving a draft written around the hole.

When this fits

It fits when you already hold the documents and are short of the hours to turn them into a first cut: a consultancy staffing a corridor mandate, a team preparing a submission, or an analyst who needs the source work done before the argument can be written.

It does not fit when the job needs primary data collection, site visits, interviews with counterparties, a legal opinion, or a signed financing recommendation. Those need a different kind of engagement, and I will say so rather than take the work.

Start

Send the question and the pack to vassiliy.lakhonin@gmail.com. If you would rather test the shape first, name a corridor question you already know the answer to and I will run it against public records, so you can mark the output yourself.

Almaty, Kazakhstan (UTC+5). Fees are per document and agreed before I start; ask and I will quote against your pack.