Data Recovery Case File · Trust, Practice & Honest Limits · Cheaper, Faster, Checkable
This Is What a Scoped Request Looks Like
Her enquiry is four sentences and contains everything anybody needs. A drive from which she wants specific files: "they are recoverable and I have had it checked for this purpose. I have a file list and can identify for you exactly which files I need recovering. There are around 4GB I would like recovering." Three things have been done here that are almost never done — the drive has been assessed, the outcome is known to be possible, and the target has a name.
| Media | Hard drive previously assessed and confirmed readable — approximately 4GB of specifically identified content required |
| Reported situation | Drive previously assessed by a third party and confirmed recoverable · owner holding a list of the specific files required · approximately 4GB of content identified · scope defined in advance of any work |
| Fault class | Confirmed recoverable with defined scope — capture sequenced to named material; completion verifiable against the supplied list |
| Equipment used | Supplied file list used to sequence capture · imaged write-blocked with named material reached and confirmed first · completion verified against the list rather than by volume · remaining capture continued only on instruction |
The decode: what a list actually changes
What it changes about sequence: imaging can be directed. Rather than reading a drive end to end and reconstructing everything before anybody knows whether the important material survived, capture is aimed at the regions holding the named files first. The answer arrives early instead of at the end.
What it changes about confirmation, and this is the substantial part: a recovery scoped to named files can be checked. The files are located, opened, and shown against her list — at which point "did you get what I needed" has an answer rather than an estimate. A job scoped to everything can only be reported as a quantity, and a quantity does not tell anybody whether the one document that mattered came back.
What it changes about cost: less than people expect, and it is worth being straight about. The drive still has to be read, and reading is most of the work — so a 4GB target on a large drive does not cost a fraction of a full job. What it saves is time, uncertainty, and the reconstruction effort that would otherwise go into material she does not want.
What it changes about stopping: the job has an end. Once the listed files are confirmed, the work is done unless she asks for more — rather than continuing until a drive is exhausted and producing a delivery nobody can evaluate.
Why the prior assessment matters: she is not asking whether recovery is possible, because that question has been answered. That removes the largest uncertainty from the conversation and means the discussion is about scope and cost rather than about odds.
The one caution worth adding: a list made from memory or from an old catalogue may not match what is actually on the drive. Filenames change, folders get reorganised, and material gets moved. The list is used as a target rather than a contract — anything found under a different name is still hers, and anything on the list that does not exist is reported rather than searched for indefinitely.
Why this case is short: because there is very little to decode. A well-scoped request with a known-good outcome is the simplest kind of work there is, and most of what makes recoveries difficult is absent here.
On the bench
The supplied file list was used to sequence capture, imaging directed at the regions holding named material rather than proceeding end to end, so confirmation arrives early. The drive was imaged write-blocked with named material reached and confirmed first, and completion verified against the list rather than by volume — a quantity of recovered data being unverifiable against a requirement, where a named file either opened or did not. Remaining capture continued only on instruction.
The outcome
Capture sequenced to the supplied list, named material confirmed first and completion verified file by file. Free assessment, one fixed written figure including VAT; where a drive has to be opened, 50% of parts and labour is payable upfront with the balance only on success — otherwise no recovery, no fee. The decode: a list changes what can be confirmed. A job scoped to everything can only be reported as a quantity, and a quantity does not tell you whether the document you actually needed came back. Named files either open or they do not.
Asking for specific files rather than everything
Bring a list if you can — it changes what can be confirmed rather than mainly what it costs. Capture gets sequenced to reach your named material first, so the answer arrives early instead of at the end of a full reconstruction. More importantly, the result becomes checkable: named files either open or they don't, whereas a job scoped to everything can only be reported as a quantity of data, and a quantity tells you nothing about whether the one document you needed survived. Be aware the drive still has to be read, so a small target on a large drive doesn't cost a fraction. And treat the list as a target rather than a contract, since names and folders change.
Bring the list — call Guildford Data Recovery on 01483 901310; capture sequenced to named material, confirmed first and verified file by file rather than by volume.
Request a quote online →
Our case files are drawn from genuine enquiries received by our laboratory over the past ten years, anonymised to protect client confidentiality. Each one describes the diagnostic and recovery procedure our engineers apply to that fault, using the equipment listed.