Skip to main content

Your analysis looks solid.
But can it withstand scrutiny?

Data Integrity & Evidence Review — an independent review of your data, methodology and conclusions.

When conclusions matter, the evidence must be checked.

You’re about to present a major finding, defend a decision, or act on an analysis. The numbers look solid. The report reads well. But underneath:

Are the data complete?
Is the interpretation legitimate?
Can the conclusion actually be defended?

FactWise provides an independent and structured review of data, methodology and conclusions — before a flawed finding drives a costly decision, a compliance exposure, or a claim you can’t defend.

Why this matters

Across industry, science, reporting, and public communication,
the same pattern appears more often than many realise:

  • Numbers presented as facts without questioning how they were produced
  • Graphs that persuade more than the evidence justifies
  • Conclusions built on weak assumptions

In most cases, this is not deliberate misuse.

Yet the consequences can be substantial:
incorrect decisions, wasted actions, regulatory exposure, internal confusion, and loss of credibility.

What is reviewed

The review typically covers:

  • Data origin and operational definitions
  • Measurement system reliability and consistency over time
  • Completeness and missing data
  • Statistical robustness – signal versus noise, significant versus relevant
  • Interpretation of variation, trends, and averages
  • Anomalies, irregular patterns, and baseline integrity
  • Hidden assumptions, framing effects, and selective reporting
  • Whether the final conclusions logically follow from the available evidence

Can the numbers reasonably carry the conclusion?
And would it hold up under external scrutiny?

Typical situations where organisations seek an independent review

  • Different teams interpret the same data differently
  • KPIs fluctuate constantly, triggering discussions and actions without clarity
  • Root cause analyses lead to actions, but the same problems keep returning
  • Supplier, customer, or compliance claims raise doubts
  • Reported improvements seem difficult to explain or sustain
  • Reports and dashboards create more confusion than confidence
  • Root cause analyses lead to actions, but problems keep returning
  • Management needs confidence that conclusions are truly supported by the data

Whenever the stakes are high, the underlying evidence deserves an independent look.

Representative examples

PRODUCTION QUALITY - FOOD MANUFACTURING

A production manager reported a 40% reduction in defects following a process change. The data showed a clear before/after drop.

On review: the measurement method had been revised at the same time as the process change. Part of the improvement was an artefact of how defects were now being counted – not a real reduction.

INTERNAL BENCHMARKING - MULTI SITE OPERATION

A benchmark report compared performance across sites on a shared KPI. Senior leadership used it to identify underperforming sites.

On review: the KPI was defined and calculated differently at each site. The comparison was directionally misleading. The sites ranked lowest were not necessarily the worst performers.

PROCESS IMPROVEMENT - CI PROJECT

A CI engineer reported a 50% improvement after complaints dropped sharply following a corrective action. The project was closed.

On review: the baseline was a single anomalous week. The weeks preceding it averaged 1.5 complaints. The process had simply returned to its normal level, not improved. The root cause remained unaddressed.

What you gain

A clear, documented view of what the evidence can and cannot support

✅ A structured review summary with identified weaknesses, blind spots, and risk areas
✅ A clear distinction between real signal, routine noise, and uncertainty
✅ Documented assumptions, limitations, and where the conclusions hold (and where they don’t hold)
✅ Practical recommendations for strengthening the evidence base
✅ A written report you can use internally, share with stakeholders, or retain for compliance purposes.

Each review is scoped to the material at hand.

Client Feedback

“During our collaboration at Bekaert, I came to know Luc as a highly structured and analytically strong professional, with a sharp eye for the correct interpretation of data and facts. He has the ability to clearly dissect complex quality and performance-related issues, bringing calmness, nuance, and solid reasoning to situations where quick conclusions can often be misleading. It is precisely this combination of critical analysis and sound judgement that makes his approach particularly valuable.”

Patrick De Keyzer— Former SVP Technology Bekaert Steelcord

The cost of acting on a flawed conclusion is almost always higher than the cost of checking it first.

If your data or analysis is driving an important decision, claim, or recommendation – it deserves an independent look. Most cases can be scoped in a single 30-minute conversation.

Book a free call or reach out directly at info@factwise.be