POST-DELVE RECOVERY

Delve-audited companies are getting asked hard questions. We'll help you answer them.

We'll verify what's real in your existing reports and give you a list of what needs to be re-audited by a clean auditor.

Talk to Us

$2,500 defensibility review (one-time)

HOW IT WORKS

How the defensibility review works

Built for companies that need to re-establish compliance credibility.

1

Share Your Docs

Tell us which Delve-generated reports you have. We'll review your trust page, public compliance claims, and SOC 3 summaries.

2

We Separate Real from Fabricated

Our engine checks every claim against 11 independent public-signal sources. We identify what holds up and what doesn't.

3

Get Your Roadmap

Receive a defensibility review with evidence chains, a list of claims that need re-auditing, and questions for your new auditor.

TRANSPARENT METHODOLOGY

We show our work

Every finding includes the exact data source, query timestamp, and extraction method. Our methodology is versioned, published, and auditable. If a finding goes to court, the evidence chain holds up.

We use deterministic scripts for all signal collection and cross-referencing. No AI hallucinations. No black boxes. Every step is reproducible.

Read our full methodology
  • SEC/EDGAR Filings
  • GitHub Security Advisories
  • Certificate Transparency
  • AICPA Peer Review
  • HaveIBeenPwned
  • Court Records (PACER)
  • USPTO Trademarks
  • DNS/Subdomain History
  • State Corporation Filings
  • Job Posting Archaeology
  • UKAS/ANAB Directories
SAMPLE OUTPUT

What you get

Excerpted from an actual adversarial verification report. Vendor anonymized.

Gap Severity: Medium

Audit Firm Not Publicly Disclosed

[Vendor]'s trust center and certifications pages describe certifications but do not name the SOC 2 audit firm. The documentation states only: "an independent, external third-party firm."

Many large companies keep audit firm identity confidential, and this is not inherently problematic. However, it prevents independent verification of the auditor's quality without requesting the information directly from [Vendor].

Source
Trust page analysis + documentation review
Retrieved
2026-04-06T06:43:47Z
Method
VerityHelm Methodology v1.0 — Claim Extraction (§3)
Positive Signal Severity: Low

Active Bug Bounty Program with Published Metrics

[Vendor] operates a public bug bounty program with published metrics: $843K+ in bounties paid, 318 valid reports from 511 researchers, 1-hour average response time. The publication of detailed annual statistics demonstrates operational maturity.

Source
HackerOne public program page + vendor blog
Retrieved
2026-04-06
Method
VerityHelm Methodology v1.0 — Signal Collection (§2)

Questions to Ask the Vendor

  1. Which CPA firm performed your most recent SOC 2 audit, and what was the audit period?
  2. Is your SOC 2 audit firm enrolled in the AICPA Peer Review Program?
  3. How many security incidents occurred during your most recent audit period?
  4. Which compliance platform(s) do you use for evidence collection, and did the platform facilitate the audit engagement?
  5. What is your vulnerability disclosure and remediation SLA for critical/high severity issues?

This is an anonymized excerpt from a real verification report. Full reports include 5–10 findings with complete evidence chains, signal freshness data, and methodology disclosure.

EARLY ACCESS

Don't wait for the questions — get ahead of them

If you're on the list of 58 named companies, or used Delve for any compliance work, talk to us.