Aktau bankability screen
Worked document from five public primary records.
Illustrative sample. Workflow awaiting external validation.
Review the packbefore sign-off
I turn bounded source packs into a drafted document or a review record. The source coverage, missing evidence, owner actions, and limits stay visible.
Describe the file packChoose by what happens next
Each route produces a different artifact. Pick the event your file must survive, not a generic service category.
-
01
A donor, lender, partner, or client expects a corridor document
Corridor document from your sources
Send the question, the complete pack, the required document type, language, and deadline.
What comes back
One drafted document within 48 hours of a complete pack, with claim-to-source lines, written gaps, source conflicts, and two correction rounds. English or Russian.
No published price
See the seven document types -
02
A shipment or signature depends on one counterparty or route
Corridor counterparty check
Send the counterparty name, route, what you already hold, and the decision deadline.
What comes back
Red flags by severity, source gaps, questions for the decision owner, and a proceed, hold, or escalate recommendation within 24 hours.
Fixed fee agreed before work
Open the counterparty route -
03
A bank, counsel, or committee returned a Russia or CIS-adjacent file
Trade-file evidence gap review
Start with a redacted description: role, jurisdiction, goods, route, evidence held, and what the reviewer requested.
What comes back
A readiness record, missing-source register, written questions, and a hold, escalate, or ready call. Standard turnaround is 48 hours from a complete description; 24 hours is subject to availability.
Fixed fee from $900
Review the safe intake -
04
A donor or partner reviewer will inspect a proposal draft
Proposal evidence review
Send the draft, donor rules, source list, baseline and target material, deadline, and review question.
What comes back
A record of unsupported claims, evidence gaps, baseline and target inconsistencies, logframe or KPI conflicts, and owner actions. AI-use disclosure notes can be included where relevant.
Scope, fee, and timing agreed against the pack
Inspect the workflow first -
05
A claim-backed AI output needs a structural check before human review
Claim and source packet check
Supply the output as an explicit claim and source packet. The checker does not retrieve evidence or decide whether a claim is true.
What the checker reports
Broken references, declared-quote mismatches, lexical-support gaps, unmatched numbers, and reviewer actions before relay or use.
Open-source implementation
Inspect the packet contract
Evidence behind each route
Public artifacts are separated from demonstrations and unvalidated commercial hypotheses.
Agenda Intelligence MD
Public source, packet schemas, local validators, and CI.
Checks packet structure, not factual truth.
Russia / CIS review
Live demonstration and safe redacted intake for the fixed-fee review.
Demonstration output is illustrative, not a sanctions determination.
GrantFlow
Public source and implementation record for a governed grant workflow.
No paying case recorded.
The boundary travels with the file
Evidence-readiness review only. Not legal, compliance, sanctions, financial, investment, insurance, or trading advice.
Not a factuality verifier. No autonomous live source retrieval unless a specific route states a narrow exception. Human review is required before any commercial action.
Describe the file before sending it
State what moves next, the deadline, what the pack contains, what is blocked, and who owns final sign-off. I will use that to confirm the route, scope, fee, timing, and safe transfer channel before work starts.
Almaty, Kazakhstan · UTC+5 · Updated 8 August 2026