About For Firms Methodology Insights Get started
Case studies

Worked examples of the verification framework.

Illustrative scenarios showing how the TIB Integrity Standards are applied across engagement types, what findings look like at pillar level, and how outcomes appear in the public registry.

Illustrative content. The case studies below are constructed examples showing how TIB applies its framework. They do not describe any specific firm and do not refer to any engagement that has been conducted. Live firm case studies will be published with the consent of the firm as the registry matures.
Prop firm Verified

Funded-account programme with 12-month payout record

Scope: All six pillars · Standards TIB-IS v1.0

Context

A proprietary trading programme operating a multi-phase evaluation and a live funded-account tier sought independent verification to address participant questions about payout reliability and rule enforcement consistency.

Evidence reviewed

Payout ledger for the preceding 12 months; rejection register with supporting rule citations; counterparty and liquidity-provider agreements; capital adequacy methodology; rule-change communications.

Outcome

Pass determination across all six pillars. Payout time-to-pay and rejection grounds were consistent with published policy. Rule enforcement logs showed consistent application. Capital methodology satisfied the stress scenario requirements in TIB-IS.2.

TIB-IS.1TIB-IS.2TIB-IS.3TIB-IS.4TIB-IS.5TIB-IS.6
Broker Verified

CFD broker: execution and segregation

Scope: Limited (TIB-IS.2, TIB-IS.3, TIB-IS.6)

Context

A broker with a retail and professional client base requested a limited-scope engagement covering capital safeguarding, execution quality, and disclosure accuracy. Governance and risk frameworks were already documented under an existing regulatory authorisation and were outside the TIB scope.

Evidence reviewed

Client-money segregation statements, custodian diligence files, execution telemetry and slippage samples, marketing copy versus terms of business.

Outcome

Pass on all three pillars in scope. Registry entry issued with explicit limited-scope marker and named pillars.

TIB-IS.2TIB-IS.3TIB-IS.6
Prop firm Conditional

Remediation pathway after capital methodology gap

Scope: All six pillars · Remediation due within 90 days

Context

A proprietary trading programme met the Pass threshold on five pillars but fell short of TIB-IS.2 on capital methodology and TIB-IS.6 on fee disclosure. The firm elected to remediate.

Findings

Capital methodology did not apply the stress scenarios required by TIB-IS.C-5. Fee schedule referred to conditions published on a separate page which was no longer live.

Outcome

Conditional determination with a remediation plan agreed: revised capital methodology with stress testing, and a consolidated fee schedule published on the firm's primary terms page. Registry entry issued as Conditional with a 90-day remediation deadline and an automated scheduled follow-up.

TIB-IS.2 ConditionalTIB-IS.6 Conditional
Fund Verified

Systematic fund: governance and oversight

Scope: All six pillars · Standards TIB-IS v1.0

Context

A systematic long/short equity fund sought a verification that could be referenced during institutional allocator due diligence in parallel to operational due-diligence work commissioned by the allocator.

Evidence reviewed

Conflicts-of-interest register, board minutes, independent valuation policy, NAV production and review records, trade-allocation log, counterparty and prime-broker diligence, data-protection posture.

Outcome

Pass determination across all six pillars. Allocator reports indicated the registry entry reduced duplicated due diligence on operational-integrity topics. Scope of the engagement was disclosed in the registry entry.

TIB-IS.1TIB-IS.2TIB-IS.3TIB-IS.4TIB-IS.5TIB-IS.6
Exchange Verified

Digital-asset venue: market integrity controls

Scope: All six pillars · Standards TIB-IS v1.0

Context

An institutional-access digital-asset spot venue requested verification covering matching-engine governance, listing integrity, and market-abuse surveillance.

Evidence reviewed

Matching-engine change control, listing committee minutes and criteria, surveillance alert taxonomy and resolution log, custody arrangements, participant-facing disclosures.

Outcome

Pass determination across all six pillars. Surveillance coverage map and listing criteria version were recorded in the registry entry.

TIB-IS.1TIB-IS.3TIB-IS.5TIB-IS.6
Prop firm Revoked

Revocation after payout policy divergence

Scope: All six pillars · Initial determination Verified, revoked on evidence update

Context

A proprietary trading programme initially received a Pass determination. Three months later, whistleblower evidence and public participant accounts prompted a re-examination of the payout ledger.

Findings

A pattern of rejections under a clause not published in the payout policy was identified. The firm declined to submit a remediation plan within the required window.

Outcome

Verification revoked. Registry entry retained in history with effective and revocation dates and a summary of the material finding. The firm retains a right of appeal on procedural grounds; any successful appeal would be recorded alongside the current status.

TIB-IS.4 FailTIB-IS.6 Fail
Important. The case studies on this page are constructed examples for educational purposes. They do not describe any specific firm, any completed engagement, or any real individual. Any resemblance to actual engagements or firms is coincidental. Live case studies will be published with the firm's consent as the registry matures. For the binding legal framework governing TIB services see Terms of Service and Legal & Disclosures.