Most people who reach out to Clearstake have already run a background check. They've used one of the automated platforms, pulled the public records, maybe commissioned a basic media sweep. They know what those reports look like: a PDF with name variations, addresses, court records, and a risk score.
That is not what we deliver.
A Clearstake brief is an editorial document — a researched, structured analysis written by a senior investigator who has spent two to four days constructing a picture of your counterparty that no database query can produce.
What the Brief Covers
Every brief is scoped to the specific question the client is trying to answer — a Series B investor, a potential co-founder, a target acquisition, a strategic partner. The structure adapts to the counterparty and the deal context, but the core sections are consistent:
Executive summary. A one-page narrative of the most material findings, written for a decision-maker who needs to act quickly. No jargon, no hedging. What we found, what it means for your decision, and what questions remain open.
Identity and background verification. Corporate affiliations, disclosed business history, and a cross-check against what was represented. This section is about confirming the paper trail is what it appears to be — not the main event, but a necessary foundation.
Behavioral intelligence. This is the core of what distinguishes a Clearstake brief. Direct-source inquiry: conversations with people who have worked closely with the counterparty, conducted discreetly and without tipping the counterparty. Former colleagues, co-founders, portfolio founders, former employees. We ask the questions that curated reference calls don't reach.
Structural and conflict analysis. How does the counterparty's current position — their other board seats, fund dynamics, portfolio overlaps, personal relationships — create incentive structures that may not align with yours? This section maps the latent conflicts that aren't yet conflicts.
Open questions and recommended follow-up. What we couldn't resolve in the investigation window, and whether it matters. Not every gap is material. We tell you which ones are.
How We Source
We do not rely on databases alone. Databases surface what was filed — what was disclosed, what was litigated, what was registered. The intelligence that changes deal decisions rarely lives in a database.
Our primary sourcing method is direct human inquiry: identifying people with relevant direct experience of the counterparty and conducting structured conversations off the record. We approach this with discretion — sources are never told who commissioned the brief or why. Confidentiality is the foundation of this method; without it, sources don't speak candidly.
Public records and open-source intelligence inform and corroborate. They don't substitute for direct-source intelligence.
What We Don't Do
We don't score people. A risk score implies precision that the underlying intelligence doesn't support. Human behavior in high-stakes relationships is not a pattern-matching problem, and presenting it as one misleads buyers about the confidence level of the output.
We don't deliver reports in 24 hours. A brief completed in less than 48 hours has either been scoped too narrowly or sourced too shallowly. The timeline we quote — 48 to 72 hours — reflects the minimum time required to conduct meaningful direct-source inquiry.
We don't make recommendations. We surface what we found and explain what it means. The decision is yours to make.
Who This Is For
A Clearstake brief is most valuable when the commitment you're making is hard to unwind: accepting a lead investor who will hold board rights for five years, acquiring a company where the founder is the primary asset, entering a partnership where the other party will have access to sensitive data or strategic roadmap.
If your primary question is "does their background check out?", an automated platform is faster and cheaper, and appropriate for that question.
If your question is "is this the right person to build with?" — that's ours.