MAPPED.AGENCY
Send us the question
Research built around your task

Exhaustive Research. Trustworthy Answers.

We work as an external extension of your team. You bring a question with several conditions at once. We find the companies, people, communities and relationships that satisfy every one of them, prove each claim at its source, and deliver in the format your team works in.

Not a search, not a lead database, not an AI-generated list. Every row we deliver is checked against its source. First usable rows arrive within days, and each project is scoped and timed separately.

The problem

The data is abundant. The answer is rare.

[ 01 ]
Coverage is incomplete
Important data is scattered across registries, organization websites, publications, events, social profiles, deals, and links between platforms.
[ 02 ]
Data goes stale
Roles, contacts, specialties, and status change. A row in a database is not automatically usable.
[ 03 ]
A filter match does not prove fit
A search can return hundreds of records. Your team still has to work out who belongs and why.

A search gives you possible answers. We determine which of them are actually true, and show what each one rests on. Across our two latest complex projects, the first usable results reached the client within the first few days.

This is evidence from completed work, not a universal turnaround promise. We assess the scope, sources, and verification standard before setting a timeline.

Cases

Not databases. Decision systems.

For every assignment, we combine fragmented sources, verify the evidence, and turn it into a clear next step: who to contact, how to reach them, and what to say first.

Case 01
For a Swiss startup

Finding investors was not enough. We had to prove that each fund really backs devices like theirs, and work out who could open the door.

We did not just find investors. We mapped a route to the right people

The team came with 832 investors, nearly all tagged as medtech. Only 40 had a device deal we could prove. The list had to be rebuilt from the device side: funds that had actually backed comparable devices, plus a realistic route into each one.

[ evidence ]
203 comparable device companies · 687 funding rounds · 1,413 fund-to-round links, each with a quote from its source

We started from real transactions. Every investor came from the rounds of device companies like the client's. For each shortlisted fund we read its own site and deal records, then kept it or rejected it, with the reason saved either way.

[ evidence ]
1,089 investors surfaced · 191 fund sites read · 85 rejected with the reason recorded · 106 qualified
178
routes into the qualified funds: 162 founders of companies those funds had backed, and 16 people inside the funds themselves

What the client received was not a fund database but a working map of access: the qualified fund, the proof that it fits, a founder it had backed who can make the introduction, and a first line to open the conversation.

12,800+ pages read · first results delivered within days, then the table grew with each version
Case 02
For an American startup

Finding a profile was not enough. We had to prove the person was relevant and find something worth talking about.

We did not just find specialists. We established who to talk to, and what about

The team needed narrowly specialised people who met several conditions at once: working in the right field, publishing on a relevant topic within a defined period, appearing at particular professional conferences, based in the required geography, and affiliated with institutions of a suitable type.

We combined professional registries, institutional websites, academic publications, conference programmes, and open professional profiles. For each person we confirmed the current role, the track record, and the match with the agreed criteria.

[ evidence ]
246 specialists across 155 organizations · 902 relevant publications · 236 emails, 230 phone numbers, and 88 additional contact paths

We then built a scoring system that weighed depth of specialisation, how current the work was, professional activity, and standing within the field. For priority candidates we prepared personalised outreach hooks — a concrete reason to write, drawn from a publication, a talk, a project, or professional experience.

246
qualified specialists delivered, 95 of them marked as priority with a specific reason to start the conversation

The client received not a contact database but a working system: who to approach first, why that person, and how to open the conversation.

[ reported by the client ]
102 of the 246 specialists contacted so far · 15 replies · 12 meetings scheduled or held
3,164 evidence links for people · 479 for organizations · first usable rows within two days, the list grew to 246 while the client was already writing
Case 03
For a social-impact service team

Finding a topical chat was not enough. We had to prove the right audience was actually inside it.

We did not just find Telegram chats. We established where the audience actually is

The team was preparing a pilot launch of a support service for people with disabilities. The announcement needed live communities of parents whose children have motor impairments.

Ordinary search mixed that audience with news feeds, charities, fundraisers, medical centres, sellers, and dormant channels. A matching name proved nothing.

We built 49 search formulations and searched across names, posts, recommendations, and links between venues, followed connected chats and discussions, and read real messages alongside 90-day activity.

[ evidence ]
360 venues reviewed in depth · more than 83,000 public Telegram records analysed

For every venue we scored audience fit, the share of substantive discussion, current activity, suitability for a pilot announcement, whether administrators could be reached, and the level of noise and commercial content.

around200
relevant channels, chats, and discussions entered the final map

The client received a prioritised map of communities: where the audience is, how closely each venue matches the task, what proves it, and who to contact.

Three different assignments. One principle: find the rare intersection of criteria, prove it with sources, and turn research into action.

These figures describe the research performed. Where a client has told us what happened next, it is marked as reported by the client.

How we work

From a difficult question to a verified result

We use AI throughout: it searches, extracts, classifies and suggests candidates. The difference is what happens after the suggestion.

[ 01 ]
Define
We turn the question into explicit criteria: who belongs, who is excluded, and what counts as evidence.
[ 02 ]
Discover
We build the broad candidate universe across the agreed sources: databases, organisation sites, registries, publications, archives, and community sources.
[ 03 ]
Investigate
We follow each unresolved fact from source to source until it is settled or marked unknown.
[ 04 ]
Verify
We resolve identities, dates, current roles and conflicting claims. Namesakes and stale records do not pass.
[ 05 ]
Qualify
We test every candidate against every criterion at once. Every exclusion keeps its reason.
[ 06 ]
Deliver
One row per person or company, with the evidence, confidence, contact details and the next useful action.

Three things hold on every assignment: every delivered claim is traceable to a source, every rejected candidate keeps its reason, and the first usable rows arrive within days.

Where useful, we can expand the initial result, add new source layers, or build a repeatable update process.

Ways to work with us

Four formats. One standard of proof.

[ 01 ]
Research sprint
One difficult question and a verified output built around agreed criteria.
[ 02 ]
Market or target map
Investors, companies, experts, partners, audiences, or competitors with evidence of fit.
[ 03 ]
Data audit and enrichment
Review an existing spreadsheet or CRM, fix weak records, and find what is missing.
[ 04 ]
External research team
An ongoing queue of hard questions, maintained data, and a shared research workflow without building a full internal department.

Each format is priced as a task, not per row. One fixed fee, half to start and half on delivery, with two weeks of questions and corrections included.

Trust

You can see what every conclusion rests on

  • [ 1 ]facts, inferences, and unknowns stay separate;
  • [ 2 ]material claims link back to sources;
  • [ 3 ]a weak match is labelled as weak, not buried in a longer list;
  • [ 4 ]sensitive data is not published;
  • [ 5 ]external actions remain under the client's control.
Final step

Send us the question or your current spreadsheet

We will assess what can be proven, which sources are likely to matter, and the best format for the result. After a short review, we will agree on scope and timing.

We use your materials only to assess and complete your request.