Content mapping
Search results, articles, posts, reviews, videos and accessible archives.
Reputation, influence and crisis
Online reputation: understand the origin, reach and dynamics of an attack.
A factual reading of content, actors, relays and amplification mechanisms to avoid rushed reactions and select an appropriate response.
The scope is adjusted to the question, urgency and available material. The aim is to obtain a useful answer without widening the research unnecessarily or collecting information that has no bearing on the decision.
Objective
Measure the reality of a crisis and identify its levers.
The analysis distinguishes visibility, credibility and propagation capacity. An isolated negative mention is not treated as a coordinated campaign without sufficient evidence.
The timeline, republication patterns, observable audiences and relationships between relays help assess the dynamics and response options.
When a point cannot be confirmed, it is identified as an uncertainty or a lead for further verification. This distinction protects the quality of the report and prevents a plausible interpretation from being mistaken for an established fact.
Mission scope
What the analysis can cover.
The following areas can be combined or narrowed depending on the case. Each retained element must contribute to the stated objective and be obtained through a lawful, traceable source.
Narrative analysis
Themes, allegations, factual elements, distortions and recurring arguments.
Relays and amplification
Public accounts, websites, communities, republication and possible coordination signals.
Crisis timeline
Observable origin, distribution peaks, reactions, transformations and persistence.
Executive exposure
Associations between a person, role, organisation and sensitive topics in visible results.
Response options
Evidence priorities, reporting, right of reply, communications and ongoing monitoring.
Deliverable
A reputation diagnosis before public or legal action.
The report gives executive, legal and communications teams a shared factual basis for aligning urgency and response strategy.
The main findings are written in plain language, with dated sources, confidence levels and practical consequences. A short executive summary supports quick reading, while the detailed sections preserve the reasoning needed to review the conclusions.
ReportIIS / REP
- Visible-results review
- Timeline
- Narratives and relays
- Reach assessment
- Response and monitoring plan
Working framework
What makes a request easier to assess.
Question
State the decision, concern or event behind the request. A precise question produces a more proportionate search than a broad request for “everything” about a person or organisation.
Reference points
Share the names, entities, URLs, dates, public references and known aliases that matter. This helps distinguish a relevant trace from a namesake, an old result or an unrelated account.
Limits
Specify recipients, timing, jurisdictions and any legal or human constraints. The scope can then be restricted to lawful, useful sources and sensitive material can be handled with the appropriate care.
Decision
Explain what the report must enable: verify, prioritise, brief a professional, prepare a discussion or decide whether to proceed. The expected use informs the depth and format of the deliverable.
Useful distinctions
Clarity about scope protects the decision.
Does a public trace prove identity or intent?
Not automatically. A public trace can be incomplete, outdated, copied, falsely attributed or associated with a namesake. Its value comes from the quality of its source, its date, its context and corroboration by independent elements.
What is outside the scope of a lawful mission?
Accessing private accounts, bypassing security controls, intercepting communications, acquiring unlawfully obtained data or using deception to obtain protected information are excluded. The analysis is confined to open, lawfully accessible sources and client-provided material.
Can the report be used by advisers or internal teams?
It is designed to support review: a concise brief, dated sources, confidence levels, caveats and next-step options. The recipient remains responsible for their own legal, technical, HR or communication decisions.
Confidential scoping