# What belongs in a defensible digital-asset due-diligence file

> The goal is not a long memo. It is a reproducible decision whose evidence, limits, owner, and revocation conditions remain visible after the market changes.

- URL: https://riadefi.com/due-diligence/defensible-file/
- Section: Due diligence
- Author: Jon Ragsdale
- Reviewed: 2026-08-11

Reader objective: Create a reviewable record for approval, rejection, and ongoing monitoring.

## Decision header

- Exact instrument, token, contract, protocol, market, and chain
- Research assessment; firm-shelf status; model-client eligibility; advisor selection
- Reviewer, approval date, next review, and version
- Actual household and account eligibility, intended purpose, client-specific constraints, and advisor-selected amount

## Evidence body

- Economic exposure and return source
- Legal claim, issuer, redemption, and eligibility
- Asset, protocol, chain, oracle, bridge, and custody dependencies
- Fees, liquidity, valuation, tax, and operational workflow
- Incidents, counterevidence, unresolved questions, and source archive

## Review conditions

Review conditions are observable facts that reopen a research assessment, shelf decision, eligibility finding, or advisor decision: an exploit above a threshold, admin change, new collateral class, liquidity floor, depeg duration, shortened timelock, regulatory restriction, issuer change, or missed disclosure. Define the threshold, affected layer, and data source when the condition is adopted.

## Corrections are part of the product

Never silently rewrite the prior decision. Supersede it. State what the earlier version claimed, why it was incomplete or wrong, what evidence changed, and how the relevant assessment, policy, eligibility, selection, or limit changed. A visible correction improves the record because it demonstrates process rather than hindsight.

**Refusals matter** A documented adverse finding or policy exclusion shows which layer decided the outcome without pretending yield or access measures quality.

## The format, in use

Every element above exists in public, filled in. Take [the BUIDL memo](https://ketjuresearch.com/register/blackrock-buidl/): a favorable-with-conditions research assessment, separate model-client ineligibility, supported by qualified-purchaser eligibility, a $5M individual minimum, wallet whitelisting, plus a version number, a review date, a scheduled next review, and the reopen condition written down at decision time: revisit immediately if a retail or accredited share class ships. One page. A regulator, a client, or a colleague reading it two years from now can see exactly what was decided, on what facts, and what would change it.

Every adverse memo in [the research files](/rejections/) follows the same format, and so does every other current assessment, published in full in [the Ketju Register](https://ketjuresearch.com/register/?utm_source=riadefi&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=register&utm_content=format-in-use). The discipline is keeping research, firm shelf, client eligibility, and advisor selection separate.

## Sources

- [Investment Management — Investment Advisers](https://www.sec.gov/investment-management) — U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission

---

Published by Ketju Research (https://ketjuresearch.com). Educational analysis only; not legal, tax, compliance, or investment advice.
Machine-readable index: https://riadefi.com/llms.txt · Content API: https://riadefi.com/content.json