Skip to main content

Commissioned reporting

Scoped, quoted, and editorially independent public-interest investigations — produced outside the domestic media landscape.

Why external investigative capacity matters

Organisations that encounter questions of public accountability — procurement irregularities, undisclosed conflicts of interest, gaps in the official record — often need answers before they decide how to act. Internal reviews carry the perception of bias. Domestic media commissions can raise questions about editorial independence. An external, foreign-registered newsroom with no advertising relationships in the jurisdiction under scrutiny offers a structural separation that strengthens the credibility of findings.

Zeuven Heuvels B.V. accepts commissions from law firms preparing for litigation, civil society organisations monitoring public institutions, academic researchers requiring document verification, and media outlets that need additional investigative bandwidth without compromising their own editorial lines. Every commission begins with a written scope that defines the research question, not the desired conclusion.

We operate from the Netherlands and report primarily on Canadian federal institutions. Our editorial standards follow the Dutch Journalism Code and the European Federation of Journalists' guidelines on source protection and fact-separation. We have no access bargains with Canadian parliamentary services, no advertising revenue from the sectors we investigate, and no political affiliation.

How a commission works

  1. 01

    Initial consultation

    You describe the subject matter and the question you need answered. We assess whether the project falls within our area of competence — Canadian federal institutions, procurement, transparency, and the public record — and whether accepting it would create any conflict of interest with our existing editorial work. This conversation is confidential regardless of whether a commission proceeds.

  2. 02

    Scope and fixed-fee proposal

    We produce a written scope document that defines the research question, the source categories we intend to consult, the estimated timeline, and a fixed project fee. We do not bill hourly. The scope explicitly states that Zeuven Heuvels retains full editorial control over findings and conclusions — this is non-negotiable and protects both parties.

  3. 03

    Independent investigation

    We conduct the research independently. You receive progress updates at agreed intervals — typically fortnightly — but you do not review draft findings, suggest directions, or approve conclusions. Our verification process includes cross-referencing documentary evidence, confirming source provenance through EXIF and metadata analysis, and giving subjects of the investigation a meaningful opportunity to respond.

  4. 04

    Deliverable and optional publication

    You receive a written report with sourced findings, a verification summary, and our assessment of what is confirmed, what is probable, and what remains unresolved. If agreed in advance, the findings may also be published on our site as an investigation brief, with the commissioning relationship disclosed transparently in the article's methodology note.

What we investigate

Parliamentary record gaps

Discrepancies between official Hansard transcripts, committee minutes, and observable proceedings. We cross-reference documentary evidence against publicly available recordings and gallery testimony to identify omissions in the formal record.

Procurement irregularities

Federal infrastructure and technology procurement processes where the paper trail suggests departures from published guidelines. We trace contract timelines, compare bid documentation with award rationales, and identify undisclosed relationships between decision-makers and vendors.

Undisclosed conflicts of interest

Situations where public officials or witnesses before parliamentary committees have financial, professional, or personal connections to the subjects of their testimony or decisions that are not recorded in conflict-of-interest declarations.

Recording verification

Authentication of audio and video recordings submitted by sources. We verify provenance through EXIF metadata, cross-reference timestamps against parliamentary schedules, and assess whether clips have been edited, truncated, or recontextualised before treating them as evidence.

Broadcast infrastructure analysis

Technical examination of parliamentary and institutional broadcast systems — the separation between public feeds and internal closed-circuit loops, the decision points that determine what the public sees, and the architectural gaps that allow off-record activity to be observed.

Document analysis

Systematic review of large document sets — ATIP releases, committee evidence bundles, regulatory filings — to identify patterns, contradictions, or material that has been redacted, withheld, or excluded from the public record without adequate justification.

What we do not do

Clarity about boundaries is as important as clarity about capabilities. We turn down work that would compromise the editorial independence that makes our findings credible in the first place.

  • Opposition research. We do not produce material designed to damage a competitor, political opponent, or litigation adversary. If your purpose is to build a dossier, we are not the right partner.
  • Litigation support with predetermined conclusions. We will not produce a report that reaches a conclusion you have specified in advance. The scope defines the question, never the answer.
  • Surveillance or pretextual enquiries. We do not follow individuals, record private conversations, or misrepresent our identity to obtain information. Our methods are transparent and lawful.
  • Outcome guarantees. Investigative journalism uncovers what the evidence shows, which sometimes means the answer is “the allegation is not supported.” We report that finding with the same rigour as a confirmed irregularity.
reporter desk laptop notes documents

Pricing and timelines

Every commission is quoted as a fixed project fee, not an hourly rate. This protects you from scope creep and protects us from the perverse incentive to stretch a project beyond its natural endpoint. The fee is determined by three factors: the complexity of the research question, the number and accessibility of the source categories involved, and the timeline.

Typical investigations run between four and twelve weeks. A narrowly scoped verification task — confirming the provenance of a single recording, for instance — may take less than a fortnight. A multi-source investigation that requires document requests, interview coordination, and right-of-reply periods will take longer. We provide a realistic timeline in the scope document, and we do not compress deadlines at the cost of verification standards.

Payment terms, cancellation provisions, and intellectual property arrangements are set out in the commission agreement. The agreement is governed by Dutch law. Fees are denominated in euros.

“The scope defines the question, not the answer. That distinction is the difference between investigative journalism and advocacy.”

— Editorial principle, Zeuven Heuvels B.V.

Discuss a potential commission

Initial consultations are confidential, whether or not a commission proceeds. Tell us about the question you need answered, and we will assess whether our capabilities and your needs are a good fit.

Contact the newsroom