Start with the Warranty Complaints.
Leaking jackets arrive at Alderline Outdoor’s warranty desk with receipts from two shops: Alderline Outlet and Trail Lantern. Product specialist Isaac Lin flags suspect construction and labels. Helen Ward, the brand’s customer-experience lead, asks Jaya to investigate.
Jaya brings Helen’s instruction and the warranty records into nQuest. She buys one jacket from each shop and ties the invoices, packaging, and custody records to separate specimen numbers. September web captures preserve the current offers alongside the dated August transactions.
With nQuestReopen a saved offer with its URL and collection time, beside the records of what was actually purchased.
The saved offer in nQuest, with its URL, collection time, and AI synopsis beside the page.
View full screenshotConnect the Physical Finding to the Seller.
Isaac examines both purchased jackets against a retained genuine garment and Alderline’s production records. Untaped seams, the wrong backing, and an unissued model label support his finding: both specimens are counterfeit.
Jaya lays out the photographs in nQuest and connects them to the examination report. She follows each specimen through its custody record and invoice to the supplying shop. Both invoices name Ridgeway Retail LLC with the same business identifier: two storefronts, one documented seller.
With nQuestKeep each relationship tied to its supporting records, so a reviewer can follow the finding back to the evidence.
The specimen view brings the photographs, purchases, and authentication report together in nQuest.
View full screenshot
The seller view connects both storefronts to Ridgeway, with the invoices and examination report behind the finding.
View full screenshot
The saved offer in nQuest, with its URL, collection time, and AI synopsis beside the page.
Read the source connections
- Purchase log and separate invoices
What It Shows. AO-84271 and TL-45108, paid totals of $73.95 and $84.95, and Ridgeway’s matching entity number.
What It Supports. Two documented transactions with the same named supplier.
- Tracking and custody ledger
What It Shows. Parcel references, separate specimen bags, intact seals, transfer to Isaac, and return after examination.
What It Supports. The report concerns the exact garments Jaya bought.
- Reference and specimen photographs
What It Shows. Sealed reference construction beside untaped stitching and the unissued model label.
What It Supports. Visible examination exhibits, read with the specialist’s report.
- Authentication report
What It Shows. Isaac’s comparison with the retained garment, approved construction, label artwork, and model register.
What It Supports. A counterfeit finding on TP-01 and TP-02.
- Public business record
What It Shows. Ridgeway’s entity number, business address, and listed manager.
What It Supports. A business contact lead; it does not identify manufacture or knowledge.
Check the Shared Returns Address.
A third retailer, Summit Yard, appears through another warranty return. Its paperwork lists the same Baybridge returns address as Jaya’s two parcels. Isaac finds this jacket genuine, with a zipper fault. Helen corroborates Summit’s stock invoice through the distributor and brand ledger, while Baybridge confirms it handles returns for unrelated merchants.
In nQuest, Jaya records why Summit falls outside the referral. During review, she asks about the address overlap. The AI answer links to supporting case records, so she can check its reasoning against the material already gathered.
With nQuestAsk about a connection, then follow the answer’s reference into the case material behind the assessment.
The AI answer explains why the shared address is insufficient and links back to the supporting case records.
View full screenshotGive the Brand an Actionable Referral.
In nQuest, Jaya writes the referral for Alderline’s brand-enforcement team. It brings together the two counterfeit purchases, invoices naming Ridgeway, current offers, and the reasons for excluding Summit, ready for Helen’s review.
She assigns herself two next steps: review the referral with Helen, then agree the scope and authority to seek Ridgeway’s upstream purchase records and packing details. No notice has been sent. The brand has a documented seller to act on and a clear next lead into the supply chain.
With nQuestLeave the reviewer with the finding, the evidence behind it, and assigned work for the next decision.
Two pending tasks assigned to the brand investigator: review the referral with the brand’s customer-experience lead and agree the scope for Ridgeway’s upstream records.
View full screenshotRead the finding excerpt
Investigator’s Finding
Refer the two controlled purchases from Alderline Outlet and Trail Lantern, authenticated counterfeit in PA-260828-17. Both invoices identify Ridgeway Retail LLC, NV20202348761. The purchase and custody records connect each transaction to the examined specimen. Exclude Summit Yard on the examined evidence: WR-03 is genuine, its previous-season stock record is corroborated, and Baybridge supplies a shared returns service. Obtain Helen’s scope review before seeking Ridgeway’s upstream records. Manufacturer, packing premises, wider sales, and knowledge remain unresolved.