Identify
Resolve the client's subject to the correct company and jurisdiction.
Entity identity sheet
Build company research your client file can withstand.
Resolve the legal entity, trace ownership, cite the underlying records and preserve the limits of the evidence in a report another professional can reproduce.
For lawyers, accountants, consultants and advisory teams preparing client work, opinions, investigations and transaction support.
Source-cited research fileEvidence assembled
SubjectHarbour Advisory Services Ltd
ResolvedIdentity and ownership record assembled
Decision questionCan another professional verify the entity, relationship and calculation behind this conclusion?
Government registry dataCurrent company record and three reported shareholders
Source factVerified public-source evidenceRegulatory disclosure explains a historic name change
Separate evidenceZavia calculationOne 32% indirect interest reproduced across two companies
Formula shownUnresolved or conflictingNo source-reported effective date for an older transfer
ReviewWorkflow outcomeCurrent structure supported; historic transfer date qualified in the client note
One evidence model throughoutExact legal entityNamed source and dateVisible ownership pathExplicit evidence gaps
The operating problem
The answer is only as strong as its source trail.
Screenshots, unsourced databases and flattened ownership lists are difficult to review later. Zavia retains the source state and path behind each company and ownership claim.
Decision to support
Can another professional verify the entity, relationship and calculation behind this conclusion?
01
Have we identified the correct legal entity and record date?
02
Can every shareholder, group link and calculated interest be traced to evidence?
03
What remains unavailable, conflicting or dependent on professional interpretation?
How the workflow fits
Move from submitted company to reviewable evidence.
Zavia provides the company and ownership layer. Your team keeps control of policy, judgment and the final decision.
Research
Collect available ownership, group and historical relationships with their sources.
Structured research record
Explain
Show the path and formula behind indirect interests and ownership conclusions.
Reproducible analysis
Qualify
State what the evidence does not establish and where additional documents are required.
Professional exception note
What your team receives
A decision file—not a data dump.
Every output is built to be reviewed by a person, passed into a system and revisited when the underlying company changes.
Company overview
Registered identity, status, address, identifiers, jurisdiction and official source details.
Ownership appendix
Shareholder and UBO paths with direct, indirect and calculated interests.
Source schedule
Registry and verified public records mapped to the claims they support.
Research limitations
Specific gaps, conflicts and timing constraints ready to include in the client file.
Evidence architecture
Do not flatten four different evidence states into one answer.
The distinction is visible to analysts and available to systems through structured delivery.
Government registry data
The company fact or relationship as reported by the named official registry or government source.
Verified public-source evidence
A named public disclosure matched to the legal entity and kept separate from official registry facts.
Zavia calculation
A result derived from supported source facts, with the entity path and formula available to reproduce.
Unresolved or conflicting
A missing, unclear or inconsistent part of the record that the workflow must not convert into certainty.
The procurement test
What a skeptical buyer will challenge.
These are the controls that prevent a useful company-data workflow from becoming an overclaimed black box.
“We need the underlying record, not a vendor assertion.”
Zavia exposes the named source, date and evidence type behind each supported relationship. Access to a source copy depends on jurisdiction and licence.
“A calculated UBO could be mistaken for legal advice.”
Calculated interests are labelled and accompanied by the formula. Professional teams make the legal, accounting or regulatory interpretation.
“Point-in-time facts are easy to misstate.”
Filing, effective and retrieval dates remain distinct where available, and historical gaps stay visible.
Use the same evidence everywhere
Web platform, API, MCP, bulk data and monitoring.
Agreed web, API, MCP, bulk-data and monitoring implementations are designed to preserve the same resolved entities, relationship paths, evidence types, available dates, calculations and unresolved states.
Compare access methodsStructured decision contextCan another professional verify the entity, relationship and calculation behind this conclusion?
- entity
- resolved
- registry_evidence
- attached
- ownership_paths
- visible
- calculations
- reproducible
- unresolved
- explicit
Frequently asked questions
Scope, evidence and workflow boundaries.
Need to test a specific jurisdiction or policy? Talk to the Zavia team.
Use your own company cases
Test the evidence before you change the workflow.
Start with a legal entity your team already knows. Compare the sources, ownership path and unresolved gaps against your current process.