CUSTOM ACCOUNT RESEARCH
Research the company facts your database can't filter.
I check public sources for custom account attributes — technical capabilities, certifications, hiring signals and other objective criteria — and return the result with the source and date checked.
- Public-source research
- Evidence URL included
- Unclear cases flagged
Run by Hassan Amin. I do the research and source checking myself. LinkedIn ↗
HOW I REPORT RESULTS
The status is part of the evidence.
I return a direct source URL and checked date with each row. When the public evidence is insufficient, I keep that uncertainty visible instead of turning it into a confident answer.
Direct public evidence supports the criterion.
The fact was not found in the public sources checked. This is not proof that it is false.
The source visibility or wording is not strong enough for a defensible conclusion.
“Not found” does not mean “No”. I record what I checked, link the evidence route and leave the limitation visible.
ONE-OFF DIAGNOSTIC
Test the workflow on 20 accounts.
This is the validation offer: small enough to test without committing to a large data project, structured enough to see whether the research is actually useful.
If a criterion is too subjective, inaccessible, or cannot be checked reliably from public sources, I’ll say so before accepting the batch.
- 20 supplied company domains
- Up to 2 agreed custom attributes
- Evidence URLs + verification dates
- Delivery within 2 business days when accepted
- No named-contact harvesting
- No sales or revenue guarantee
No account needed. Scope is confirmed before the batch is accepted.
HOW IT WORKS
Three steps. Evidence attached.
- 01
Send the accounts
Provide 20 company domains and up to two objective criteria you need checked.
- 02
I research
I check the relevant public sources — official documentation, careers pages, company pages and other suitable public evidence.
- 03
You get the checked sheet
Each row comes back with a status, direct source, date checked and a note where the evidence is ambiguous.
WHO IT FITS
Best when the rule repeats.
Useful account research gets more valuable when the same qualification rule needs to be applied consistently across a list.
- ABM and outbound agencies
- B2B sales and GTM teams
- Repeated account qualification
- Objective criteria needing public evidence
- Bulk email scraping
- Huge commodity lead lists
- Subjective prospect scoring
- Restricted-access or private-data scraping
FAQ
The practical questions.
What sources do you use?
It depends on the criterion. Typical sources include official product documentation, pricing or security pages, company websites, careers pages, Companies House and other relevant public sources. I return the source used with the row.
Do you use AI?
I may use AI-assisted tools to speed up research and organisation, but I check the evidence against the cited public source before returning a row. The service is sold on the resulting research, not on an “AI” label.
What happens when a fact cannot be verified?
I mark it NOT FOUND ON CHECKED SOURCES or UNCLEAR and explain the limitation. I do not turn missing evidence into a confident “No”.
What happens after the £75 diagnostic?
If the diagnostic is useful, larger or repeat batches can be scoped and quoted separately. There is no subscription or larger commitment built into the diagnostic.
SEND A DIAGNOSTIC BRIEF
What do you need checked?
Give me the shape of the list and the one or two facts that are taking manual research time. I’ll tell you whether the criteria fit the service before anything is accepted.
hassan@aminworks.co.ukEMAIL DRAFT READY
Send your brief by email.
Open the draft below, review it and send it from your email app. Your brief has not been sent yet.