When an economic or fiscal claim is about to be contested, in a land-use hearing, a rate case, an incentive fight, or litigation, the number has to hold up under questioning from an opposing expert.
Who we serve: For lenders · For developers · For local governments · For tribes · For attorneys · For grant writers
We audit the study on the other side of the table, the economic or fiscal analysis the opposing party is relying on, and tell you plainly what its claims actually support and where they break. We also produce the analysis behind your own side, when a fiscal or economic figure needs to hold up as part of your case, built from the start to survive review by an opposing expert and a judge.
And we red-team your own expert's numbers before a deposition or a hearing finds the weak assumption first. The analyst who does the work runs the same checks against your side that we would run against the other, so the gap in the model surfaces at your desk while there is still time to fix it or account for it, rather than in the transcript.
A study that breaks under cross-examination is worse than no study at all. It hands the other side a talking point and puts the rest of the case under a cloud, and the weak assumption in it is a matter of when someone finds it, not if.
We build every study or audit on the public federal record and label each figure by method, source, and tier, so you and your expert both know what a number rests on before anyone else asks. The work is human-reviewed, and the analyst who wrote it can walk you and your expert through every figure in it.
See the actual artifacts we deliver →
Have a study to audit, a case to build, or your own expert to pressure-test? Tell us what you are working on, and we will lay out what the analysis takes, and what it costs.
Start a conversation