Analytical tradecraft, source reliability grading, and how AI-assisted collection is used — with mandatory analyst verification on every output.
Raw findings are not a report. Every source Greyline uses is graded for reliability before a finding built on it is written up — a single anonymous forum post is treated differently from a corroborated public record, and the report says so explicitly rather than presenting both with equal confidence.
Where AI-assisted tools are used in collection — pattern-matching across large data sets, flagging candidate matches for a named-entity search — every output is verified by a named analyst before it enters a report. Tooling accelerates collection; it does not sign off a finding. This distinction matters most in the AI & Synthetic Intelligence capability, where detection tooling is probabilistic by nature: findings there are worded as consistent with, not proof of, a given pattern.
An unverified finding looks like a lead in an analyst’s working notes. A corroborated finding looks like a sourced, dated statement in the delivered report, cross-referenced against at least one independent source wherever the underlying material allows it.