When everyone in a field starts a search in the same place, everyone develops the same blind spot. Subjects who care about how they read have been advised against the search nine out of ten researchers will run first. They have almost never been advised against the fifteenth one. That asymmetry is the whole reason it pays to open a file somewhere unfamiliar.
We make a habit of starting from a second source first. For a given person, we might begin with a regional commercial registry, a trade-press archive, a property-title search, a procurement award database, a charity register, a disputes index. Each will surface either nothing or a thread the standard source does not have.
The point is not that the second source is better. It is that the second source has been advised against less. A person who has groomed their primary footprint has often not thought about the fifteenth one.
This is also true at the country level. The obvious country to look in is the country of registration. The interesting country is often the one next door. Counterparty filings in a neighbouring market; screening lists from a regional body. public filings from a partner country whose rules have surfaced names that would otherwise be quiet.
We sequence projects so the obvious source is the second pass, not the first. The first pass is shaped by what we expect a person to have groomed. The second pass confirms what the groomed surface says. The order matters because once you have looked at the obvious source first, every other source feels like a confirmation rather than an independent read.