Stevens is not a licensed attorney. ESA Snitch does not provide legal services, consumer advice, tenant or landlord advocacy, or letter-validity assessments to individuals. Attorneys only.

ESA Snitch investigates commercial emotional support animal letter platforms and delivers the results to licensed counsel: authenticated platform captures, documented tester transactions, credential verification, regulatory records, mapped discovery targets, and an adversarial read on case viability. The work runs through a documented multi-agent AI methodology with human verification gates at every checkpoint. Every deliverable arrives with a contemporaneous verification record and a hash-verified exhibit index.

The commercial proposition, stated plainly: ESA Snitch lowers an attorney's case-development cost. The attorney buys authenticated facts, a documented timeline, mapped discovery targets, and an honest assessment of what survives. Everything else is production machinery.

What ESA Snitch is not: not a medical determination engine, not a disability adjudication system, and not a claim that all ESA providers are unlawful. No output evaluates whether any individual has a disability or needs an accommodation. Targets are specific commercial actors whose documented process contradicts their documented promises.

ESA Snitch documents. Counsel owns every legal conclusion and every filing decision. That division of responsibility is the engagement.

The Methodology

Five steps. Each one defined. The attorney directs at intake, at evaluation, and at every use decision.

Step 1 — The Target Brief

Retaining counsel shapes the engagement. Q&A intake establishes the target platform, the jurisdiction, and the theory posture. Florida work runs on FDUTPA; for any other state, the brief maps that jurisdiction's UDAP analog, its telehealth practitioner-patient relationship requirements, and its licensing board rules before anything else runs. No framework is ported unexamined. Conflicts clear before the file opens — including against Stevens' own active matters, disclosed to every prospective client before engagement.

Step 2 — Capture

Forensic capture of the platform's marketing claims, order forms, and intake flows. Every artifact is timestamped, SHA-256 hashed, and preserved in versioned archives with a chain-of-custody record. Same tools, same process, every capture in a file — process variance is the first thing defense counsel attacks, and consistency is the answer.

Step 3 — The Tester Transaction

Documented purchases preceded by recorded customer-service probes, made with affirmative disclosures in the intake — disclaimed conditions, stated non-therapeutic motive, or fabricated diagnoses no clinician could credit — structured to give the platform every opportunity to decline and to record what its process actually does. The intake-to-issuance timestamp delta is the central artifact. Every artifact is preserved, hashed, and timestamped. No issued letter is ever used.

Step 4 — Records & Credential Engineering

Decision-node anchored public records work under the Stevens Method: licensing board disciplinary histories, telehealth registrations, multi-state practice records for signing clinicians, corporate registry ownership mapping behind platform brands, AG consumer complaint databases. "Records sufficient to show" language forces production or converts a no-records response into a substantive admission. A no-records response is data, not proof of misconduct — it establishes what the regulator did not have or did not do, nothing more without corroboration.

Step 5 — The Build Loop & Delivery

STAN — the multi-agent stack — assembles the dossier under role-differentiated mandates: red team attacks the file the way defense counsel will, green team builds the affirmative chronology, validator flags every citation, figure, date, and named individual that cannot be grounded against a primary source. Hades runs the acid test. Judge Dredd, the AI gatekeeper, scores the result; dossiers that do not clear 9/10 return to the loop. The deliverable ships to counsel with a viability read: what defense counsel argues, what survives, what is missing. Counsel evaluates. Counsel decides. ESA Snitch documents.

The Build Sheet

Every ESA Snitch deliverable arrives with a Build Sheet — a contemporaneous written record of how the file was developed. Which agent roles ran. What the red team attacked. What the validator flagged. What Hades caught and corrected. Every factual claim traced to a docket number, date, document name, statute cite, or hash. Every non-factual statement labeled: Fact, Inference, or Hypothesis, with the reasoning shown.

The Build Sheet matters because ESA Snitch assumes scrutiny. Every output may be produced in litigation, quoted by opposing counsel, or reviewed by a regulator. When counsel needs to demonstrate how the evidence was developed and verified — to a magistrate, to opposing counsel, to a malpractice carrier — the documentation already exists. It was written as the work happened, not reconstructed after the challenge landed.

The Minimum Viable Case Standard

A target is dossier-ready when the file contains, at minimum: one verified marketing claim, captured, hashed, and dated; one documented tester transaction with preserved intake and issuance artifacts; one timestamp delta or credential inconsistency; and one preserved artifact with a full chain-of-custody record. Below the threshold, collection continues. At the threshold, the dossier ships. Over-collection stalls the pipeline and expands discovery surface.

The Deliverable Universe

Counsel selects the deliverable; the methodology produces it. Pricing is flat-fee per defined deliverable, scoped during intake.

Target Dossier

The core product. Marketing captures, tester transaction timeline, credential verification, records-request results, corporate ownership mapping, jurisdiction-specific statutory mapping, and an exhibit index with hashes. Twelve to twenty-five pages, scaled to the file. Delivered as an authenticated factual record for attorney evaluation, with the adversarial viability read attached.

Research & Drafting Support

Complaint and motion structures derived from filings that survived dispositive motion practice, annotated for counsel. Attorney-directed drafting support for adaptation under counsel's judgment — not forms, not a packaged legal product. The anchor theory is deceptive representation of process: the gap between the evaluation the marketing promised and the process the platform delivered. Amplifiers — cross-state licensure gaps, telehealth statute noncompliance, issuance-volume ratios, automation evidence — strengthen the anchor; the drafting support maps both to the operative jurisdiction.

Discovery Roadmap & Deposition Outline Kit

Interrogatory and RFA structures probing evaluation duration, clinician-patient contact records, and issuance-volume-per-clinician ratios. Subpoena duces tecum target maps: server logs, intake timestamps, issuance timestamps, payout structures, asynchronous communication records. Investigative work product identifying targets and sequences; counsel determines use.

Jurisdictional Compliance Memo

The target state's UDAP analog, telehealth relationship requirements, and licensing board rules mapped against the target file. Research memorandum; legal conclusions belong to counsel.

Compliance Monitoring

For injunction holders: scheduled capture of the enjoined party's public-facing conduct, hash-verified preservation, and variance reporting on a defined cadence. Built from live post-judgment enforcement practice. Evidence preservation service.

Consulting Engagement

Stevens retained by counsel as investigator or consulting expert. Terms are established per engagement under reviewing-attorney sign-off.

Why the Methodology Fits This Work

Four structural features distinguish ESA Snitch from a demand letter with screenshots attached.

First, the tester transaction as ground truth. The methodology does not infer what a platform's process is from its marketing. It buys the product, on the record, with affirmative disclosures the platform had every opportunity to act on, and preserves what actually happened. A deceptive claim without process proof is an ad critique, not a case. The tester transaction is the proof layer.

Second, adversarial pressure as a design constraint. The dossier is attacked before it ships — red team runs the arguments defense counsel will run: fast issuance alone is not illegality, absence of records is an admission and not a conviction, multi-state telehealth licensure is genuinely complex. What clears the loop has already survived the defense's opening moves.

Third, evidence discipline as a default posture. Every platform and every letter is treated as unverified until the clinical timeline and credentialing are affirmatively established. The documentation confirms or clears. Presumption of misconduct is discoverable bias; the labeling discipline exists so there is none to discover.

Fourth, operator credential. The methodology was built on the operator's own record: the Tinner permanent injunction — a pro se FDUTPA action in Florida's 17th Judicial Circuit, with active post-judgment enforcement including hash-verified capture and cure-window sequencing — and active FDUTPA litigation against a letter platform and its signing clinician that has survived motions to dismiss, with discovery proceeding. The methodology was not built in a workshop. It was stress-tested against opposing counsel who treated the matter as adversarial, because pro se status does not reduce that pressure.

Division of Responsibility

Stevens is not a lawyer. Stevens does not give legal advice, select causes of action, set litigation strategy, advise the underlying client, or sign filings. The retaining attorney directs every matter, owns every legal conclusion, and makes every filing decision. Tester standing under UDAP statutes varies by jurisdiction and is the purchasing attorney's question; ESA Snitch documents, it does not opine.

Two boundaries are absolute. ESA Snitch works only for the aggrieved side — never for a letter-mill platform, never for a signing clinician, regardless of fee or framing. And ESA Snitch does not serve individuals: no consumer advice, no letter-validity assessments, no negotiation support for tenants or landlords. Sympathetic facts do not move either line; sympathetic facts are how lines erode.

What the Methodology Does Not Do

The verification record is not a warranty, and the dossier is not a conclusion. The file establishes what was promised, what was delivered, and what the regulators had — whether that gap is actionable in a given jurisdiction, on a given client's facts, is counsel's determination. Single-source figures stay internal until corroborated. Case outcomes are stated exactly, with no inflation. Verification-flagged items resolve against primary sources before anything goes external. The record earns the pitch; the pitch never outruns the record.

ESA Snitch documents. Counsel concludes. That division of responsibility is the engagement, and it is the reason the methodology is structured the way it is.

Engagement

ESA Snitch engages with the firm, not the underlying client. Intake requires bar lookup and jurisdiction match against the state bar's public roll, firm or solo-practice verification, and a conflicts check — including against Stevens' own active matters, which every prospective client is told about before engagement. Each attorney client's file is sealed: no cross-client context, ever, including in AI pipeline runs. Work performed at the direction of retained counsel is labeled for the work-product posture counsel designates; ESA Snitch makes no privilege determinations. Any litigation hold freezes deletion across affected files immediately.

Pricing is flat-fee per defined deliverable, scoped during intake and confirmed before the Build Loop runs. The Build Sheet is included in every engagement; it is part of the deliverable, not an upsell.

The methodology is not theoretical. The proof is the injunction on the docket.