Define the decision question
Specify the decision, the people who will use the output, the timing and the practical consequences of getting the issue wrong.
Method
The decision comes first. The research follows
The objective is not to collect more information about a country. It is to identify the evidence that can change a defined decision involving Türkiye and China, make uncertainty visible and state what should be checked next.
Decision research
Not a general country report: evidence that can change the decision
Every engagement begins with the same question: what decision must the client make? The scope is then defined around the organisations, institutions, jurisdictions, timing and evidence threshold that matter to that decision. Research that cannot change the choice, the risk assessment or the next verification step is not treated as an end in itself.
How the work proceeds
Six stages from question to verification
Build the source map
Identify the Chinese, Turkish and, where materially relevant, EU, US or third-country records required for the question.
Match entities and institutions
Confirm bilingual company and institution names, legal entities, subsidiaries, project vehicles and the relationship between formal titles and actual authority.
Cross-check the record
Test dates, definitions, scope and institutional competence. A company statement or repeated media report is not treated as final evidence merely because it is widely circulated.
Read institutions rather than labels
Separate legal ownership from effective control, central policy from local implementation, an announced incentive from a binding obligation, and an institutional title from decision authority.
Translate findings into decision and verification steps
State what the evidence means for the decision, which scenarios remain plausible, what could overturn the current assessment and what should be independently verified next.
Source priority
China’s institutions cannot be read through English summaries alone
Chinese-language Party-state and policy documents, regulator notices, corporate disclosures, official statistics, registries and reporting establish the institutional record. Turkish sources are used to understand Türkiye’s legal, institutional, commercial and political-economic context. Translations and secondary summaries may assist navigation, but they do not replace entity matching, source checking or institutional reading.
Party, government, ministry and regulator documents
Provincial, municipal and district-level records
Company annual reports and stock-exchange disclosures
Corporate registries and legal-entity records
Official statistics, court and public-procurement records
Patent, standard, subsidy and industrial-park material
Reliable Chinese-language economic and local reporting
Turkish institutional, regulatory and commercial sources relevant to the decision
Source hierarchy
Sources carry different evidentiary weight
Primary record
Legislation, official notices, registry records, court or regulator documents and company-issued financial reports may support a verified fact when they directly establish the point at issue.
Strong institutional or academic source
Industry-association data, peer-reviewed research, international-organisation data and established institutional analysis may be used with the source type and limitations stated.
Reliable reporting
Credible reporting is used with bounded language and, where possible, corroboration. ‘Reported’, ‘announced’ or ‘according to’ is not converted into an unqualified verified fact.
Lead requiring verification
A single unverified source, aggregator, marketing page or unattributed number creates a verification task. Repetition does not by itself raise the evidence level.
Evidence classification
What is known, inferred, unresolved and still to be checked
Verified fact
Information directly supported by adequate publicly available or client-provided sources.
Analytical inference
A reasoned interpretation produced by reading multiple verified findings together.
Unresolved uncertainty
A material point that the available record does not settle or leaves in conflict.
Further verification step
A document, commitment, specialist review or independent check required before action.
Time discipline
Every conclusion belongs to a dated evidence record
Each report states its own information cut-off. Developments after that date are outside scope unless the document is formally updated. Publication date and information cut-off are not treated as interchangeable. Provisional statistics, announced plans and draft rules are described by their actual status rather than as final outcomes.
Challenge the first interpretation
Ask what would make the conclusion fail
The review process tests the strongest plausible alternative explanation, searches for contrary evidence and identifies the assumptions on which the conclusion depends.
- entity and name mismatches
- formal ownership that may not explain effective control
- central announcements that may not establish local implementation
- corporate claims that may reflect promotional incentives
- inconsistent dates, denominators or jurisdictional definitions
- evidence published after the stated cut-off
- downstream findings that would change if a material claim fails
Geographic scope
Türkiye and China first; other contexts only where the decision requires them
EU and US regulation, markets or industrial policy are incorporated where they materially shape a Türkiye–China decision, including tariffs, market access, investment screening, subsidies, sanctions, export controls, technology restrictions, supply chains, production location and rules of origin.
Selected third-country cases may also be examined when they form part of a defined Türkiye–China decision. The work is bounded by the decision question, country, sector, companies, institutional setting and regulatory issue. It does not imply general regional advisory coverage.
Independence and limits
Preliminary assessment is not formal due diligence
The work is based on publicly available sources and does not replace legal, financial, tax, sanctions, compliance or formal due-diligence review. The parties assessed are not represented, and no commission is received on any transaction. Relevant reviews should be commissioned separately from qualified specialists before any transaction decision.
See the Method in the BYD AssessmentNext step
Define the decision before defining the report
Share the company, institution, sector or policy issue and the choice the research must support.