Rules
Portfolio case studies fall into six distinct shapes, each with its own rules
Portfolio case studies shapes listed: six study types, the minimum evidence each needs, and the conclusion each one is never allowed to reach.
Not every question about a venture can be answered by the same kind of write-up. Some need a structure drawn from a register, some need a claim tested against a record, and some can only honestly end in a statement that the record does not contain the answer.
Fame Owned Ventures covers celebrity businesses and investments, so read these shapes with a famous name in mind. A celebrity venture often starts with a public identity that is licensed, endorsed, or folded into a company. The records rarely show the person's control directly. They show entities, marks, dates, and statements.
The six shapes below are the ways to test what can honestly be said about those ventures. They also help avoid turning fame into a fact the file does not support.
For celebrity businesses and investments, this page lists the case-study shapes that are worth attempting, what each one needs before it can be published, and what each one is not allowed to conclude. It names no venture and no person.
What to take away
- Choose the shape before gathering material. The shape decides which records you need and which conclusions are available.
- A study that cannot reach its conclusion is still publishable, as a study of what the record does not hold.
- Every shape has one failure it is prone to, and knowing yours in advance is most of the defense.
Six shapes
| Shape | The question it answers | Minimum evidence | The conclusion it may not reach |
|---|---|---|---|
| The entity trace | Which companies exist and how they relate | Register filings, with dates and jurisdiction | Who controls them |
| The group map | How a set of entities is arranged | Filings plus common agents, officers or addresses | That the entities are one business |
| The claim audit | Whether a public statement matches the record | The statement, dated, and the record it concerns | Motive, or that anyone was misled |
| The ending reconstruction | What is visible about how a venture stopped | Status changes, filings, public statements | Whose decision it was |
| The sector comparison | How arrangements differ across categories | Several traces, done identically | That one sector performs better |
| The negative result | Why a question cannot be answered from public sources | A documented search that found nothing | Anything about the underlying facts |
The last shape is the one nobody writes and the one that would most improve celebrity business and investment coverage. A page saying which records were checked, on what dates, and what they did not contain is genuinely useful, and it cannot be wrong.
Six case study shapes
Shape
- Entity trace
- Which companies exist
- Group map
- How entities arranged
- Claim audit
- Statement matches record
- Ending reconstruction
- How venture stopped
- Sector comparison
- Arrangements across categories
- Negative result
- Why unanswerable
Question
- Entity trace
- Register filings, dated
- Group map
- Filings, agents, addresses
- Claim audit
- Statement and record
- Ending reconstruction
- Status changes, filings
- Sector comparison
- Several identical traces
- Negative result
- Documented empty search
Minimum evidence
- Entity trace
- Who controls them
- Group map
- They are one business
- Claim audit
- Motive or misleading
- Ending reconstruction
- Whose decision it was
- Sector comparison
- One sector performs better
- Negative result
- Underlying facts
Forbidden conclusion
- Entity trace
- Group map
- Claim audit
- Ending reconstruction
- Sector comparison
- Negative result
What each shape needs, in practice
The entity trace. Search the state or national register for the names in play, note formation dates, current status, registered agent and jurisdiction. Record the date you looked, because entries change. The portfolio case studies page sets out the evidence ladder these filings sit on.
Evidence each shape needs
- Entity traceregister names, dates, status, agent
- Group mapadd trademark, property, financing records
- Claim auditdated statement plus the record
- Ending reconstructionstatus changes and mark maintenance
- Sector comparisonsame trace done identically
The group map. Add trademark ownership, which is searchable in the trademark database, and any property or financing records available where you are. Shared agents and addresses are evidence that entities are related. They are not evidence of who decides, and a map that quietly upgrades one to the other is the standard error here.
The claim audit. Take a dated public statement and find the record it concerns. Where they differ, write both. Do not write the difference as a lie: coverage compresses, spokespeople simplify, and registers lag. The celebrity companies examples page shows how verbs slide between arrangements without anyone stating a falsehood.
The ending reconstruction. Collect status changes and their dates, check whether marks are still maintained, and stop. The acquisitions and exits failures page sets out why the mechanism behind an ending is almost never visible from outside.
The sector comparison. Do the same trace in each sector, with the same records, and report what was available in each as part of the finding. Differences in what you found are often differences in what is filed rather than in what happened.
The negative result. Log every search: the register, the terms, the date, the result. Publish the log.
The records these shapes run on
- Business registers, for existence, status, agents and officers. Their general shape is described in the guide to registering a business.
- Trademark records, for ownership of names and for whether anyone is maintaining them.
- Court dockets, for filings, read as allegations.
- Property and financing records, where the jurisdiction publishes them.
- Regulatory registers, for licensed activities.
- Public statements, which are evidence of what was said.
Notice what is missing: accounts of private companies in most jurisdictions, contracts of any kind, cap tables, and prices. That absence is not a gap in your research. It is the shape of the category, and it is why ordinary due diligence by a buyer takes months and produces material no journalist will ever see.
Choosing between the shapes
Ask what you would need to know for your intended conclusion, then ask which record would show it. If no record would, change the shape.
The technology investments timeline page is a worked example of a sector where that test eliminates most of what people want to write. The media companies portfolio page shows a structure that can be mapped but not priced.
Common questions
Is a case study without a conclusion worth publishing?
Yes, if it says clearly what was searched and what was found. Readers are better served by a documented absence than by a confident guess.
How many records make a finding safe?
There is no number. What matters is that each claim in the piece is supported by a record that could actually show it, and that inference is labeled as inference.
Can I use coverage as a source?
For what was said, on a date, by a named outlet. Not for the underlying fact, unless the outlet shows the record it relied on.
What if the register contradicts an official statement?
Publish both, note the dates, and prefer the register for facts about entities. Do not resolve the contradiction for the reader when you cannot.
