Case File
Intelligence Research Workbench
Evidence-grounded subject reports

Every claim, traced to a source.

Manual background checks mean hours of scattered searches, no record of which source backed which fact, and red flags you might miss. Case File retrieves the evidence, drafts the report, and stamps anything it can't confirm — so nothing slips through unverified.

Citation-verified claims
Risk & red-flag review
Timeline reconstruction
EN / ID evidence sources
Sample output

What a case file looks like

An illustrative example, built on the same template real reports use. No evidence was actually retrieved for this subject — it exists only to show the shape of the output.

case file · subject report · illustrative example
R. Hartono (sample subject — not a real report)
6 source article(s)  /  1 unverified claim(s)  /  Wikipedia: found

Biography

Began career as a regional trade ministry advisor before moving into private-sector logistics. Art. 2
Reportedly advised on a provincial infrastructure tender in an unspecified year. UNVERIFIED

Risk & Red Flag Review

Procurement irregularity allegationinvestigation
Named in a provincial audit inquiry regarding a 2021 contract award. Art. 5

Timeline

2019
Appointed regional advisor. Art. 1
2021
Named in provincial audit inquiry. Art. 5
The difference

The old way vs. the Case File way

The old way
  • Hours of scattered searches across a dozen open tabs
  • No record of which source backed which fact
  • Red flags easy to miss in a pile of articles
  • English-language sources only — half the picture missed
The Case File way
  • Evidence retrieved from a curated article corpus in minutes
  • Every claim carries a citation — or an UNVERIFIED stamp
  • Structured risk & red-flag review with status tracking
  • English + Indonesian Wikipedia cross-reference for background
Built different

Every section is grounded in evidence

01

Citation-verified claims

Every biography and career-history line is checked against the retrieved evidence. Unmatched claims are stamped UNVERIFIED, not deleted.

02

Risk & red-flag review

Findings run through a status taxonomy — allegation, investigation, formal charge, conviction, denial, acquittal, no sufficient evidence.

03

Timeline reconstruction

Dated events pulled from the corpus, laid out chronologically, each one still carrying its source citation.

04

Sentiment analysis

Positive and negative drivers extracted separately, each one traceable back to the claim behind it.

05

Wikipedia cross-reference

Background context pulled from English or Indonesian Wikipedia — shown, but kept visually separate from the evidence-grounded analysis.

06

Contradictions & gaps

The report calls out where sources disagree or evidence runs thin, instead of papering over it.

How it works

From corpus to case file in three steps

01

Ingest

Curators pull articles into the corpus from an Indonesian news aggregator. Admin-gated, so the corpus stays clean.

02

Generate

Enter a subject name. Case File retrieves matching articles and Wikipedia context, then sends the evidence set to the model.

03

Verify

Every claim is checked against its citation. Anything the system can't confirm is stamped UNVERIFIED and shown anyway — never hidden.

8
articles max per report, hard-capped by the backend
50
articles max per ingest batch
2
languages cross-referenced — English & Indonesian Wikipedia
0
unverified claims hidden — they're stamped, not deleted
Access

Three levels, no accounts required

Reader
No key
  • Read past reports
  • Preview article evidence
Always open
Curator
Admin / ingest key
  • Everything in Analyst
  • Add new articles to the corpus
Admin only

Start your first case file.

Enter a subject name and let the evidence do the talking.

Generate a report