Expert-report template · 2026-07-04

Expert-report template for CredScore verdicts

When a CredScore verdict is cited in a Suspicious Activity Report narrative, litigation exhibit, regulatory response, or expert-witness declaration, the report should follow the structure below. This template establishes the methodology reference, engine version, and coverage bounds that make the citation defensible.

Every section’s purpose is explained inline. Skip nothing — the omitted sections are the ones that create impeachment risk on cross-examination.

Preparing an expert report that cites CredScore? For methodology clarifications, engine-behavior confirmations, or attestation letters supporting a specific verdict: email legal@credscore.us. Response SLA is one business day for authenticated CredScore customers.
§ 1

Identification of the report and analyst

Purpose: Establishes who wrote the report, when, and their qualifications. Threshold requirement for expert-witness admissibility.
Include:
  • Report title
  • Analyst's full name, employer, professional credentials (AML certifications, compliance-role tenure)
  • Preparation date
  • Matter/case identifier if applicable
  • Statement of the specific question the report addresses
§ 2

Wallet address and chain identification

Purpose: Removes ambiguity about which on-chain entity is under discussion. Address format matters — cite the full canonical form.
Include:
  • Wallet address in canonical form (lowercase hex for EVM chains, Base58 for Tron)
  • Chain identifier as recorded in the CredScore verdict (eth-mainnet, tron-mainnet, etc.)
  • Any known entity attribution the wallet resolves to at time of report
  • Alternate identifiers if applicable (ENS name, contract label, exchange-account association)
§ 3

CredScore verdict citation

Purpose: Cites the specific verdict token, engine version, and analysis timestamp being relied upon. Establishes the forensic snapshot boundary.
Include:
  • Verdict token (shared_analyses.token as printed on the Defensible Verdict Report)
  • Direct URL to the verdict: https://www.credscore.us/report/{token}
  • Engine version (e.g., 2026-06-20)
  • Analysis timestamp in UTC
  • Full text of the executive summary if the engine emitted one
  • Score, tier, decision posture, confidence — all as reported by the engine
§ 4

Methodology reference

Purpose: Cross-references the CredScore whitepaper so opposing counsel can independently verify the scoring logic. Standard academic-citation practice.
Include:
  • Citation of the CredScore Whitepaper (https://www.credscore.us/whitepaper), including whitepaper version
  • Specific whitepaper sections the report relies on (typically scoring pipeline, sanctions enforcement, defensibility)
  • Statement acknowledging that CredScore is a deterministic scoring engine, not a machine-learning classifier
  • Statement acknowledging that CredScore output is decision support, not final determination — quoted from the Defensible Verdict Report footer
§ 5

Primary risk drivers with evidence

Purpose: Enumerates the specific signals CredScore surfaced. Every driver is cited by name with its underlying evidence, so opposing counsel can trace each claim to specific on-chain activity.
Include:
  • Each driver from the verdict listed by name
  • The severity classification the engine assigned
  • The evidence lines the engine cited — verbatim, not paraphrased
  • The engine's impact statement for the driver
  • Optional: independent verification of the underlying evidence via a block explorer
§ 6

Offsetting factors considered

Purpose: Demonstrates that the analyst considered counter-evidence. Omission here is a standard cross-examination attack; naming the offsetting factors preempts it.
Include:
  • Every offsetting factor the engine surfaced
  • The evidence attached to each factor
  • Statement acknowledging that the offsetting factors were weighed in the engine's final verdict
  • Optional: analyst's own commentary on whether the offsetting factors are strong enough to alter the recommended action
§ 7

Sanctions and regulatory exposure

Purpose: Specifies exact sanctioned counterparties involved, list source, and whether the exposure was direct or indirect. Regulatory review starts here.
Include:
  • Each sanctioned counterparty address the engine recorded
  • The entity attribution (Lazarus Group, etc.) if known
  • The sanctions list source (OFAC SDN, EU sanctions, UK sanctions)
  • Whether the exposure is direct (this wallet transferred with a sanctioned address) or indirect (via an intermediary)
  • Statement about the engine's hard-cap enforcement for sanctions exposure
§ 8

Sensitivity analysis

Purpose: Documents the conditions under which the verdict would flip. This is where the analyst distinguishes robust findings from tenuous ones.
Include:
  • The sensitivity notes the engine emitted, verbatim
  • Analyst's assessment of which sensitivity conditions are most likely to change over time
  • Statement about the wallet's activity trajectory (referencing the score-history chart at credscore.us/wallets/{address}) if longitudinal data supports the analysis
§ 9

Coverage limitations

Purpose: Lists what the engine did NOT analyze. Regulatory review expects this. Omission implies the analyst overreached.
Include:
  • Chain coverage boundary (EVM + Tron; Bitcoin scoring is under development)
  • Multi-hop tracing limitation — currently sanctioned-counterparty edges only
  • Attribution corpus size at analysis time
  • Any data availability issues encountered (transfer count cap hit, provider timeout, etc.)
  • Time window between sanction publication and CredScore corpus sync
§ 10

Recommendation and disposition

Purpose: The action the analyst is recommending. Distinguishes the engine's recommendation from the analyst's independent judgment.
Include:
  • The engine's decision posture (Proceed / Review / Escalate / Block)
  • The analyst's independent recommendation, with reasoning if it differs from the engine
  • Specific actions the analyst is recommending (SAR filing, transaction hold, account review, etc.)
  • Statement confirming that the analyst has independently reviewed the CredScore output prior to recommending action
§ 11

Attestation and signature

Purpose: Standard expert-witness closing. Establishes that the report is factually accurate to the analyst's knowledge and prepared in accordance with professional standards.
Include:
  • Statement of factual accuracy to the analyst's knowledge and belief
  • Statement of independence from CredScore (the analyst is not a CredScore employee or contractor unless otherwise disclosed)
  • Statement of any compensation received for preparing the report
  • Analyst's signature and date
Disclaimer. This template is a structural guide for expert-witness reports that cite CredScore verdicts. It is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Every jurisdiction has its own admissibility rules for expert-witness testimony; the analyst and the engaging attorney are responsible for local compliance.