Partnerships

Most organisations that need to know whether a voice recording is genuine do not need a detection company. They need one answer, on one recording, at a moment when it matters. A partnership exists so that answer arrives through people who already know your file, rather than through a form.

Who this is for

Law firms and litigation teams A recording enters a file and the other side disputes it. You need a written opinion that survives an opposing expert, and you need to know early whether the material can support one at all. A standing arrangement means the triage happens in hours rather than after a procurement cycle.
Insurers and claims investigators Voice is now cheap to fabricate, and a claim can turn on a call recording. The useful arrangement is rarely case by case: it is a defined route for the small share of claims where authenticity is genuinely in doubt, with a fixed turnaround your adjusters can plan around.
Forensic laboratories and expert practices Established practices in audio, video or documents are asked about AI-generated voice and often decline for lack of a defensible method. Co-signature and subcontracting arrangements let you keep the client relationship while the authenticity question is handled by someone who works on it full time.
Platforms, banks and contact centres Here the question is not one recording but a flow, and the constraint is regulatory as much as technical. The European AI Act has imposed transparency duties on AI-generated audio since 2 August 2026, and the obligation falls on deployers as well as providers. Work usually starts with what you are already required to do, not with a product.

What each side brings

From this side: a working method for voice authenticity, a body of filed inventions behind it, and a practice of stating uncertainty rather than hiding it. Findings are written to be read by someone hostile to them. That is the whole point of the exercise.

From yours: the file, the context, and the question that actually needs answering. Almost every disappointing analysis traces back to a recording handed over without its history, or to a question phrased so broadly that no honest answer fits it.

Where your material can be examined, and under what handling rules, is settled before any work starts rather than assumed. For regulated sectors that question usually decides whether an arrangement is possible at all, so it belongs in the first conversation and not in an annex.

How one starts

Not with a contract. With one real case, priced as a normal engagement, so that both sides can see what the work looks like before anyone commits to a framework. If it goes well, the framework is a short document that fixes turnaround, confidentiality, and who signs what.

Reciprocal referral arrangements, co-authored writing, and joint responses to public tenders are all reasonable starting points. Reselling under another brand is not, because the value of a signed opinion is that it carries a name.

What this is not

This is not a certification scheme, and no partnership grants a right to describe a recording, a product or a service as verified by me. It is not an exclusivity arrangement, in either direction. And it is not a guarantee of a conclusion: a recording that cannot support a confident finding will be reported as such, to a partner exactly as to any other client. An arrangement that quietly created pressure toward a preferred answer would be worth less than no arrangement at all.

Start a conversation

Useful in a first message: what you do, the kind of matter where voice authenticity comes up for you, roughly how often, and whether there is a live file behind the question. A live file is not a prerequisite, but it changes the conversation entirely.

eliotcohenbacrie.com · Forensic voice authenticity · oravys.com · LinkedIn