Fictional sample matter
Follow one finding through the trail.
Marlowe v. Marlowe is a fictional matter built from synthetic records. Follow one finding, an outgoing $48,000.00 wire with no matching deposit, from the flag that surfaced it to the saved finding that cites it. No signup, upload, or account required.
- Matter
- Marlowe v. Marlowe
- Finding
- Outgoing $48,000.00 wire, February 12, 2024
- Steps
- Detect · Trace · Test · Report
The four steps of the sample case
01 · DetectA $48,000.00 wire surfaces on the case dashboard
- What ForensicTrail found
- An outgoing $48,000.00 wire from the joint checking account on February 12, 2024. Classification flagged it High value and Round amount, and transfer detection counts it as the case's one unmatched transfer.
- Why it matters
- Money out with no matching deposit has left the disclosed records. A single movement this size needs an explanation before anyone relies on the case totals.
- Where it came from
- The February 2024 joint checking statement. Each transaction is extracted into the case ledger with the page it came from.
- What the expert controls
- Flags point you to a transaction; they do not decide anything. Whether this wire matters, and what it means, is the expert's call.
In ForensicTrail: Case dashboard · fictional dataAction Items counts one unmatched transfer, and Top Flagged Transactions lists the wire first, flagged HIGH and ROUND. 02 · TraceOpen the statement page behind the transaction
- What ForensicTrail found
- The ledger's source link, MARLO_000147, opens page 3 of the February statement with the wire highlighted in the extracted transaction list.
- Why it matters
- Anyone checking the figure can compare the extracted row with the original page instead of trusting a summary.
- Where it came from
- Page 3 of joint-checking-2024-02.pdf, Bates MARLO_000147. The file's digital fingerprint was recorded in the chain of custody when it was first read for extraction.
- What the expert controls
- The wire has no category yet, so it reads Needs review until a reviewer assigns one in the review queue, where the decision is logged. If extraction misread the line, you can edit it from this view.
In ForensicTrail: Flagged Transactions and the statement viewer · fictional dataThe ledger's source link MARLO_000147 opens page 3, where the wire row is selected and reads Needs review. 03 · TestCheck every disclosed account for a matching deposit
- What ForensicTrail found
- Transfer detection found no matching credit in any of the six disclosed accounts, so the wire is the one row on the Unmatched tab.
- Why it matters
- Detection pairs a debit with a credit in a different account within 5 days and $0.01 of the amount, when either side reads as a transfer (a wire does). With no pair, the records produced so far do not show where the $48,000.00 went.
- Where it came from
- The Unmatched row links back to page 3 of the February statement.
- What the expert controls
- The product reports only that the counterpart statement may be missing. You decide whether to request the receiving account's records or resolve the row by manual review.
In ForensicTrail: Transfer Analysis, Unmatched tab · fictional dataThe Unmatched tab lists the wire as the one internal transfer with no matching counterpart in the case. 04 · ReportSave the conclusion as a Finding
- What ForensicTrail found
- An open Finding states the unexplained $48,000.00 wire and cites the wire itself as its evidence. No counter-evidence was recorded.
- Why it matters
- This is the conclusion the expert carries into their report or work product. A claim that cites its evidence can be checked against the original statement.
- Where it came from
- Evidence [1] opens the February statement at the wire, Bates MARLO_000147.
- What the expert controls
- The expert writes and edits the title and claim, and it is saved as a Finding with version history: earlier versions stay in the audit history. The expert can dismiss or reopen it at any time.
In ForensicTrail: Findings, finding detail · fictional dataAn open Finding: the expert's title and claim, with the wire cited as evidence [1] and no counter-evidence.