FOR INVESTIGATORS

Reconstruct the story, not the address graph.

An incident is a narrative: what was attempted, what committed, what rolled back, where value went. Evidence-grade reconstruction with every claim bound to the transaction that carries it.

concept
CASE FILE · INCIDENT RECONSTRUCTION evidence-grade
02:14:07 rolled back
exhibit A · probe

Attempted withdrawal with a forged receipt object — aborted at the terminal check. Paid gas to learn the guard exists.

tx ▸ bound
02:14:52 rolled back
exhibit B · probe

Same call, different receipt. Aborted at the same boundary. The attack is converging on one check.

tx ▸ bound
02:16:33 committed
exhibit C · breach

Third variant committed: flash-funded deposit inflated the share price before withdrawal.

tx ▸ bound
02:17:01 committed
exhibit D · exit

Proceeds split across 4 fresh addresses; 3 hops later, consolidated at one bridge.

tx ▸ bound
02:31:44 tracked
exhibit E · now

Value currently sits behind the bridge — every hop bound to the transaction that carries it.

tx ▸ bound
The two failed probes are the finding: the exploit rehearsed before it succeeded — visible eleven minutes early to anyone reading meaning instead of bytes. Every sentence above binds to its transaction, including what the evidence does not establish.

What exactly happened, in order?

What did the attacker try that failed?

Where is the value now?

already real underneath

Every sentence the system writes is bound to per-transaction evidence — including explicit statements of what the evidence does not establish.

Would you use this? What would you ask it first?

Tell us → bartosz@research.tech
← all use cases