(Replacement Cost Basis – Bespoke Forensic System)
The work itemised below is not legal representation, but the creation of a bespoke forensic reasoning system.
The appropriate measure is replacement cost, i.e. what a reasonably competent professional team would charge to reproduce equivalent functionality, integrity, and auditability.
Costs are stated on a conservative basis:
| Phase / Version | Period | Nature of Work | Hours (Est.) | Rate (£/hr) | Cost (£) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Phase 0 | 2004–2017 | Foundational technical environment (“Host”); long-term system architecture; provenance continuity | n/a | n/a | 200,000 – 350,000 |
| Phase 1 | 2017–early 2025 | Evidential corpus assembly, preservation, cross-domain recovery | 1,800–2,500 | 80–100 | 150,000 – 250,000 |
| Phase 2 (v1.x) | May–Jul 2025 | Initial systemisation; HTML prototype; chronology engine | 1,200–1,500 | 90–110 | 120,000 – 180,000 |
| Phase 3 (v2–v3) | Aug–10 Nov 2025 | Architectural consolidation; matrices; indexed navigation; compliance base | 1,500–2,000 | 100–120 | 180,000 – 300,000 |
| Phase 4 (v4.x) | Nov–mid Dec 2025 | Forensic hardening; build retention; provenance & defensive documentation | 1,800–2,400 | 110–140 | 250,000 – 400,000 |
| Phase 5 (v5.0–v5.x) | mid Dec 2025–present | Platform-grade system; internal governance; parallel live/frozen states | 2,500–3,500 | 120–160 | 500,000 – 900,000 |
| Lower bound | £1,400,000 |
|---|---|
| Upper bound | £2,380,000 |
The costs above are reasonable because:
This Schedule does not include:
Those matters, if relevant, are separate heads.
I believe that the facts stated in this Schedule are true and that the costs claimed represent a reasonable and conservative estimate of the cost of replacing the system described.
Offline Forensic Reasoning Platform
This statement describes, in factual and architectural terms, the scale, structure, and operational nature of the Offline Forensic Reasoning Platform
It is intended to prevent mischaracterisation of the system as a document bundle, personal notes, or ordinary litigant preparation, by reference to its observable architecture and internal organisation.
This statement does not address liability, causation, or outcome.
The system is a self-contained, offline forensic reasoning platform, executed locally within a standard web browser.
The browser functions as the runtime environment.
The human reviewer functions as the execution kernel.
No internet connection, installation, or external service is required.
The system is designed to operate safely on locked-down professional machines (court, chambers, solicitors’ offices) without triggering security controls.
The current stable release comprises files across 68+ folders, totalling approximately 532.55 MB, structured as a self-contained offline forensic reasoning system:
The system has evolved beyond a “suite” into a platform with internal self-description and auditability.
The platform is organised into clearly separated architectural layers, each with a distinct function.
index.html/start.html) controls execution.This layer contains no evidential interpretation.
assets/)This layer contains primary source material, preserved in original form with additional machine text extractions where necessary, including:
This layer is evidential only. No analysis is performed here.
html/, guides/)This layer provides structured analytical views, including:
These files reference, but do not replace, primary evidence. They exist to enable independent reasoning by a reviewer.
js/, css/)This layer provides:
All logic is:
There is no hidden computation or inference.
build-logs/)This layer records the internal history of the system itself, including:
Earlier system states are preserved rather than overwritten.
This enables:
From Version 5 onward, the system explicitly maintains:
This parallel-state preservation is a defining architectural feature.
It is characteristic of professional systems operating under audit obligations, regulatory scrutiny, or adversarial review.
It is not characteristic of casual or personal document preparation.
The platform integrates evidence across multiple institutional domains, including but not limited to:
Each domain exists simultaneously as:
The system’s complexity arises from reconciliation across domains, not from volume alone.
System growth since November 2025 has been non-linear.
Each additional evidential element requires:
From Version v5 onward, growth primarily reflects governance overhead, interpretive constraint, and adversarial survivability engineering.
Based on its observable structure and operation, the platform is not:
Those descriptions are incompatible with its architecture.
On an architectural basis alone, the system qualifies as:
These are descriptive classifications, not value judgments.
This statement does not ask the reader to accept conclusions.
It asks the reader to observe structure.
The platform governs its own interpretation, preserves its own evolution, and anticipates hostile or selective reading.
Those properties define forensic infrastructure, not preparation.
Offline Forensic Reasoning Platform
This statement explains why this current 'SHELL' platform represents a material architectural transition, rather than an incremental update to prior versions.
It exists to prevent the incorrect collapsing of Version 5.x into earlier development phases for the purposes of classification, cost, or proportionality assessment.
Versions prior to v5 (v1–v4.x) collectively concern:
Version 5.x is not a continuation of those activities.
It marks the transition from a forensic tool to a governed forensic platform.
Based on the observable system structure and current stable build (05-01-2026), Version 5.x introduces the following architectural properties, which did not exist previously:
Clear separation between:
The system now constrains how it may be read, not merely what it contains.
This is a governance function, not a content function.
Version 5.x retains:
Earlier versions were replaced by later ones. In v5.x, earlier states are preserved and contextualised, not overwritten.
This introduces:
In Version 5.x, documentation explaining:
is not ancillary. It is adjunctive.
It is integrated into the platform itself (e.g. guides, build-logs, rationale documents).
The system now:
Prior versions were designed to function correctly.
Version 5.x is designed to survive adversarial conditions, including:
This required:
From an engineering and forensic standpoint:
Once a system incorporates mechanisms to prevent misuse and misreading, it has crossed from project to platform.
This boundary is recognised in professional software, regulatory tooling, and inquiry infrastructure.
The architectural changes in Version 5.x have three direct consequences:
The following observable features demonstrate the Version 5.x transition:
These features are objectively verifiable from the system contents and manifests.
Version 5.x is not:
Any such characterisation would be incompatible with the system’s observable architecture.
Version 5.x represents a qualitative transition, not a quantitative one.
At this stage, the system:
Those properties define infrastructure, not preparation.
This statement exists to ensure that distinction is preserved.