What a report actually contains
This is a complete walkthrough of a Standard Report, section by section. The candidate, the employer and every finding below are invented for illustration. Open any check to see how the finding is written, which sources were used, and how a discrepancy is reported.
PDF, no sign up and no email required. Or read how the checks are run.
Standard Report, ₹2,397, delivered in 24 hours.
Sample document, fictional data, not a real customer report
Verification Report
Report VS-SAMPLE-0000
- Candidate
- Aarav Sample Kumar (fictional)
- Consent mode
- Notified, candidate consent recorded before any check ran
- Analyst
- Reviewed by a named VerifyShaadi analyst (name shown on real reports)
- Delivered
- Sample document, no delivery date
1. Verdict summary
The first page of every report. It says what was checked, what came back, and what needs your attention, before any detail.
Summary. Seven checks were run. Four matched the claims made. One returned nothing, which for court records is the expected outcome. One check could not be completed because the records are not digitised in one relevant state. One discrepancy was found, in the job title on record.
- Verified4 checks
- Discrepancy1 check
- Not found1 check
- Unavailable1 check
No overall score, grade or pass mark is issued. A single number would hide exactly the detail you are paying for.
The claim matched an official record and the analyst confirmed it is the same person.
The record exists but does not match what was claimed. The report explains the gap; it does not accuse anyone of lying.
The source was searched successfully and returned nothing. For court records, that is a good result.
The source could not be searched, no digital records, an offline portal, or a check that needed consent we did not have.
2. Findings, check by check
Open a section to read the full finding. Every section follows the same shape: the claim, the record, the analyst’s explanation, the sources, and the evidence references.
Sample, all names, employers and findings below are invented
IdentityName, date of birth and parentage match government-issued identity records.Verified
- What was claimed
- Aarav Sample Kumar, born 14 March 1993, son of Sample Kumar.
- What the records showed
- Name, date of birth and parentage match government-issued identity records.
The identity document presented was checked against the issuing authority with the candidate’s consent. Name, date of birth and father’s name all matched exactly.
The photograph on the document matched the photograph the candidate supplied at consent. No alternate identities were found associated with the same document number.
Sources used
- Government identity registry (consent-based verification)
Evidence appendix
E-01, see appendix
Current and permanent addressBoth addresses corroborated. Current address confirmed as occupied since 2021.Verified
- What was claimed
- Current address in Pune, Maharashtra; permanent address in Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh.
- What the records showed
- Both addresses corroborated. Current address confirmed as occupied since 2021.
The permanent address matched the address held on the candidate’s identity record.
The current address was corroborated by a utility account in the candidate’s name and by the address held by the employer. The two agree, including the flat number.
Sources used
- Identity registry address of record
- Utility account record
- Employer records
Evidence appendix
E-02, E-03, see appendix
Criminal and court recordsNo matching case found in the searchable court databases covering the districts of residence for the last ten years.Not found
- What was claimed
- No criminal cases or civil litigation disclosed.
- What the records showed
- No matching case found in the searchable court databases covering the districts of residence for the last ten years.
We searched national and state case databases for the candidate’s name and known variants, filtered by the districts he has lived in since 2014.
Three unrelated listings appeared under similar names. Each was excluded: two had a different father’s name, one had a date of birth twelve years apart. Those exclusions are recorded in the evidence appendix so you can see the work rather than take it on trust.
One district court in the permanent-address jurisdiction has no digital records before 2016. That gap is stated in the limitations section, it is a gap, not a clearance.
Sources used
- National judicial data grid and state case information systems
- District court cause lists where digitised
Evidence appendix
E-04, E-05, see appendix
EducationDegree, discipline and year of award confirmed directly with the awarding university.Verified
- What was claimed
- B.E. Mechanical Engineering, 2015, from a Maharashtra university.
- What the records showed
- Degree, discipline and year of award confirmed directly with the awarding university.
The university’s verification desk confirmed the enrolment number, the discipline and the year of award.
The class of degree stated on the biodata was not specified by the university in its response, so we have reported only what was confirmed.
Sources used
- Awarding university verification desk
Evidence appendix
E-06, see appendix
EmploymentEmployment and tenure confirmed. Job title on record is Assistant Manager, not Senior Manager. Salary could not be independently confirmed.Discrepancy
- What was claimed
- Senior Manager at a Pune engineering firm since 2018, annual package ₹28 lakh.
- What the records showed
- Employment and tenure confirmed. Job title on record is Assistant Manager, not Senior Manager. Salary could not be independently confirmed.
The employer confirmed continuous employment since June 2018 at the stated company and location. That part of the claim holds.
The designation on the employer’s record is Assistant Manager. The claim was Senior Manager. Both are real positions at the company and they are two grades apart.
Compensation is not something an employer will disclose to a third party, and statutory contribution records show only the contributing wage, not total package. We therefore report the salary claim as unconfirmed rather than as true or false.
Sources used
- Employer HR confirmation
- Statutory provident-fund contribution history (consent-based)
Evidence appendix
E-07, E-08, see appendix
Previous marriageNo matching record found in the two states searched. Records in one relevant state are not digitised and could not be searched.Unavailable
- What was claimed
- Never married.
- What the records showed
- No matching record found in the two states searched. Records in one relevant state are not digitised and could not be searched.
Marriage registration in India is state-administered and unevenly digitised. We searched the two states where the candidate has resided and found no registration in his name.
A third state, where he lived between 2016 and 2018, maintains marriage records on paper at the registrar’s office and does not offer third-party search. That period is therefore unsearched.
We report this as unavailable rather than as a clean result. A family that reads "never married, verified" when a whole state was never searched has been misled.
Sources used
- State marriage registration portals (two of three states)
Evidence appendix
E-09, see appendix
Public social presenceThree openly public profiles located and consistent with the rest of the file. Nothing adverse found.Verified
- What was claimed
- No claim made.
- What the records showed
- Three openly public profiles located and consistent with the rest of the file. Nothing adverse found.
We review only profiles that are public to any visitor. We do not send connection requests, do not create profiles to view private accounts, and do not look at dating applications.
The profiles found match the employer, location and education already confirmed elsewhere in the report. We record consistency, not opinions about a person’s posts.
Sources used
- Openly public professional and social profiles
Evidence appendix
E-10, see appendix
3. A discrepancy, written the way we write them
This is the part families most want to see, so here is the full text as it would appear in the report, plain English, no insinuation, and an honest statement of what we do not know.
Employment
DiscrepancyThe biodata states the candidate is a Senior Manager. The employer’s records show the designation as Assistant Manager. Employment at the company, the location, and the start date of June 2018 all match what was claimed.
Two grades separate these titles at this employer. We cannot tell you why the claim differs. Titles are sometimes inflated on a biodata by a family member rather than the candidate, sometimes reflect an internal role that differs from the HR record, and sometimes reflect a promotion that has been agreed but not processed.
The stated package of ₹28 lakh could not be independently confirmed. Employers do not disclose compensation to third parties, and statutory contribution records show only the contributing wage. We report this as unconfirmed. It is not evidence that the figure is wrong.
Suggested next step: ask directly. A one-line question about the current designation will usually settle it, and the answer tells you more than the record does.
We do not use alarm language, do not assign a risk score to a person, and do not tell you what to decide. We tell you what the record says and where it differs.
4. Evidence appendix
Every finding is footnoted to an item in this appendix. In the delivered PDF each item includes the retrieved record or a capture of the source response, with anything not relevant to the check redacted.
| Ref | Source record | Retrieved |
|---|---|---|
| E-01 | Identity verification response, issuing authority | Day 1 |
| E-02 | Utility account record, current address | Day 1 |
| E-03 | Employer address of record | Day 1 |
| E-04 | Court database search results, five districts | Day 1 |
| E-05 | Exclusion notes for three similar-name listings | Day 1 |
| E-06 | University verification desk response | Day 1 |
| E-07 | Employer HR confirmation of tenure and designation | Day 1 |
| E-08 | Provident-fund contribution history | Day 1 |
| E-09 | Marriage registration search, two states | Day 1 |
| E-10 | Public profile capture, three profiles | Day 1 |
5. Methodology
- Every check runs against the source that holds the record, a registry, a court database, the awarding university, the employer. We do not use data brokers, leaked databases, or purchased datasets.
- A record found under a similar name is attributed to the candidate only when corroborating details agree. Exclusions are documented, not silently dropped.
- Every finding is read by a human analyst before delivery. Where the analyst is not certain, the report says so instead of rounding up to a clean verdict.
- Checks that legally require the candidate’s own consent, Aadhaar-based identity, PAN and EPFO among them, run only in notified mode. In confidential mode they are listed as out of scope.
- Sources that are offline or not digitised are reported as unavailable. An unsearchable source is never presented as a clear result.
6. Limitations and disclaimer
- This report describes what official and openly public sources showed at the time of checking, within the scope the customer selected. It is not a character assessment and not a recommendation.
- It cannot prove that nothing exists. A record may be filed after the search date, held in a jurisdiction with no digital access, or registered under details we were never given.
- A discrepancy is a difference between a claim and a record. There are innocent explanations for many of them, and the report does not assert intent.
- The report is provided for the customer’s own matrimonial decision. It should not be republished, and it should not be used for employment, credit or tenancy decisions.
The delivered report carries the full legal wording. What we cannot check explains the boundaries in more detail.
Your report will look exactly like this
Same structure, same status words, same appendix, with your candidate’s real records in place of the sample above.