Researchers · Postgraduate students · NGO and M&E teams · Report reviewers
Independent statistical second opinion
Check whether the method and conclusion are actually supported.
For a researcher or organisation that already has tables, syntax or a draft report and wants an independent, evidence-based review before relying on the conclusion.
Request a second opinion ↗
Starting pointWritten quotation after a free fit checkTurnaround follows document and model complexityRequest a second opinion →
- Study context, objectives and design
- Existing analysis output, report and syntax/code where available
- The decision, deadline and specific concern that prompted review
Define the disputed decision → Inspect the evidence chain → Separate material from optional → Record an independent decision
A small table/report review may be short; a multi-model or full-report review requires more time. The written scope states the review depth and delivery date.
One scope-based quotation covers the same review standard for every client. Price follows pages, models, available syntax/data and deadline—not nationality.
Share only de-identified material through the agreed secure workspace. Public enquiry fields are for project context, not datasets or confidential reports.
- A guarantee that the original conclusion will be accepted
- A regulatory or legal opinion
- Re-analysis beyond the accepted correction scope
The written review includes one clarification meeting and a seven-calendar-day correction window for factual or agreed-scope errors.
What you leave with
Clearer work. A more confident next move.
- A method-suitability decision linked to the research question and design
- An assumptions and diagnostics review
- A check of interpretation, unsupported conclusions and missing limitations
- A prioritised correction memo with material and optional changes separated
The session flow
Define the disputed decision
We confirm the research question, design, intended conclusion and the precise analysis that requires review.
Inspect the evidence chain
Method choice, coding, exclusions, assumptions, diagnostics, estimates and reporting are checked against the study context.
Separate material from optional
The memo distinguishes changes that could alter the conclusion from clarity improvements or alternative preferences.
Record an independent decision
The reviewer states agreement, qualified agreement or disagreement with reasons, limits and priority corrections.
Questions, answered
Does a second opinion mean the first analyst was wrong?
No. The review may agree, agree with qualifications or identify a material problem. It focuses on evidence and method rather than blame.
Can the same person perform the original analysis and independent review?
No. An independent review must be recorded by a different reviewer from the primary analyst and requester.
Do I have to share the raw dataset?
Not always. A first review can use the protocol, report, tables and syntax. Some conclusions cannot be checked fully without a de-identified analysis dataset, and that limitation will be stated.
ONE CONTROLLED STANDARD
Review the quality and reliability method behind the service.
Scope acceptance, immutable source data, issue decisions, assumption checks, human QA and versioned reporting are part of the operating model.