How GalimAI verifies an off-market deal before publishing it

Why verification is the whole point

Off-market property marketing has a credibility problem, and everyone in the industry knows it. Case studies get dressed up. Discounts get measured against invented comparables. "Verified" deals turn out to mean nothing more than a testimonial from someone who was never checked. Anyone who has spent time around UK property sourcing has seen a few of these and learned to discount every number by default.

GalimAI publishes six case studies on this site, and each one carries a specific claim: a purchase price, a projected return, a completion value. Rather than ask a reader to trust those numbers on faith, this piece sets out the actual checklist a case study goes through before it is allowed to go live, what gets confirmed, what gets left out on purpose, and how anyone considering working with us can verify a claim directly rather than take our word for it.

What Land Registry completion data confirms

Once a purchase completes, the price paid becomes a matter of public record through HM Land Registry's Price Paid Data. That is the first and most important check. Before a completed deal appears in a case study, the stated purchase price and completion date are cross-checked against the registered transaction. If the two do not match, the case study does not get published as a completed deal.

Not every deal on this site has completed yet, and the case studies say so plainly rather than blur the distinction. A projected sale price on a deal still under negotiation is labelled as a projection, not presented as if it had already closed. That distinction matters more than it sounds. A case study is only honest if the reader can tell which numbers are locked in and which are still estimates. See the Chelmsford land deal for an example of a completed purchase with a clearly labelled projected sale figure still in progress, rather than a single manufactured profit number.

For deals structured around an option or a subject-to-planning agreement, the same principle applies to the milestone dates. A planning approval date is checked against the relevant council's public planning register, not just taken from the client's account of events.

What gets redacted, and why

Two categories of detail are deliberately left out of every case study, and the reasoning behind each is different.

• The seller's identity. A property owner who sold through an off-market approach, often during a period of financial pressure, bereavement, or simply wanting privacy, gains nothing from having their name attached to their circumstances on a marketing page. We do not publish the seller's name in any case study, and we would not agree to a client request to do so either.
• The client's full acquisition economics. Where publishing a client's exact internal numbers, financing structure, or downstream sale strategy would expose competitively sensitive information, those details are generalised or left out, even where the headline figures are shown.

Street addresses are a different matter. Where a case study shows an exact address, it is because that address is already a matter of public record through the completed Land Registry transaction, so showing it does not create new exposure for anyone. The same logic applies to the redacted letter example in our direct-to-vendor letter guide: structure and mechanics are shown in full, personal identifying detail is not.

How a headline figure gets substantiated

A number like a six-figure projected return has to trace back to one of three sources before it appears on this site.

1. A completed Land Registry transaction, for any figure describing a price actually paid or received.
2. A signed and dated option agreement, purchase contract, or similar document, for any figure describing a fee, a conditional price, or a deal structure.
3. A council planning decision notice, for any figure that depends on planning permission having been secured.

Where a figure is still a projection rather than a completed outcome, for example the projected sale price on a site awaiting a buyer, the case study says so in the same sentence the number appears in, rather than leaving the reader to assume it has already happened. This is the same standard we hold our own machine learning claims to: our published research on sell-timing prediction deliberately avoids a headline accuracy percentage for the same reason, an estimate presented as a certainty is a worse kind of dishonest than no number at all.

What "65+ data points" actually means, and what it does not

The case studies hub references 65 or more data points analysed per owner across financial, legal, ownership, and director signals. That figure describes the breadth of what GalimAI checks when scoring a prospect before an approach is ever made, it is not the verification process covered in this piece. The two are related but distinct. The data-point scoring happens before a deal exists, to decide which owners are worth writing to in the first place. The verification process described here happens after a deal has been struck, to confirm the resulting case study is accurate before it is allowed to go live. Treating the two as the same thing would overstate what either one actually does, so we keep them separate here deliberately.

Requesting references

Any prospective client, buyer, lender, or broker evaluating GalimAI is welcome to ask for a reference conversation with a past client rather than rely on the published case studies alone. The process is straightforward. Get in touch through a call, tell us what you are evaluating GalimAI for, and we will ask a relevant past client whether they are willing to speak with you directly. Not every client agrees, some deals involve confidentiality commitments that rule it out, but where a client is willing, we make the introduction.

Where a direct conversation is not possible, we can sometimes share supporting documentation with identifying details removed, a redacted option agreement or planning decision notice, under a simple confidentiality arrangement. The goal is the same either way, to let you satisfy yourself that a number on this site is real before you commit any budget to working with us.

The bottom line

A case study is only as useful as the reader's ability to trust it. GalimAI's approach is to confirm what can be confirmed against public records, label projections as projections rather than dress them up as completed outcomes, redact only what genuinely needs redacting, and make it possible for anyone considering working with us to check a claim directly rather than take it on faith. That is a slower, less flattering way to publish marketing material. It is also the only version of it worth trusting.

Common questions

What exactly does GalimAI check before publishing a case study?

Completed prices and dates are checked against HM Land Registry's Price Paid Data. Deal structures are checked against the signed option or purchase agreement. Planning outcomes are checked against the relevant council's public planning register. A figure that cannot be traced to one of these sources is not published as fact.

Why do some case studies show exact addresses but not client names?

A completed transaction's address is already public through Land Registry, so showing it adds no new exposure. A seller's name attached to the circumstances of their sale adds exposure with no corresponding benefit, so it is left out.

How do I know a projected figure is not just a guess?

Every projected figure on this site is labelled as a projection in the same sentence it appears in, and it is only published where it traces back to a real signed agreement, a planning application in progress, or a comparable-based estimate, never an unsupported round number.

Can I speak to a past GalimAI client directly?

Often, yes. Ask on a call and we will approach a relevant past client on your behalf. Where a direct conversation is not possible because of confidentiality commitments, we can sometimes share redacted supporting documentation instead.

This is general information about GalimAI's internal process, not legal or financial advice. Individual case study figures reflect the circumstances of that specific deal and are not a guarantee of future results.