INDEPENDENT PROPERTY RESEARCH
How much can you rely on a property?
We’re building an independent property decision and scoring engine, grounded in public records and research on the ground.
Explore our approachOUR FIRST RESEARCH TERRITORY
Our research starts in North Bengaluru: Hebbal, Jakkur, Thanisandra, Yelahanka and the airport corridor.
01 THE DECISION STARTS WITH YOU
A great home and a great investment are not always the same thing. Your purpose changes what we examine, and how we interpret it.
What are you evaluating this property for?
You’re exploring the Self Use methodology.
02 BEFORE ANY SCORE
A critical issue should never disappear inside an attractive average.
The proposed KIRA Gatekeeper examines foundational risks before a project can enter either scoring engine.
Identity, registration and disclosures
Relevant government records
Material concerns requiring review
Documented issues and history
Discrepancies and delivery history
Material gaps and inconsistencies
Hold the assessment for further review.
Apply the relevant gate or score cap.
Proceed under the applicable scoring rules.
Excellent amenities cannot compensate
for a critical legal problem.
Framework in development. Exact gates, caps, evidence thresholds and legal review requirements will be finalized before any project score is published. A Gatekeeper review is not a legal title opinion.
03 A PURPOSE-SPECIFIC LENS
How good is this project to actually own and live in? The Self Use lens examines daily experience, long-term livability, and what you receive for your money.
10 PROPOSED PILLARS WEIGHTS NOT YET SETUsable road width, last-mile access and practical entry to the project. Site observations will be dated and distinguished from official road records.
The relationship between homes, built form and usable open space. Brochure percentages need to be checked against the relevant plans and definitions.
How much usable space the home provides, and how the layout works. Carpet area and other advertised area measures should remain clearly separated.
Access to destinations that matter in everyday life, using infrastructure that exists today. Journey observations need a time, route and date.
Access to schools, hospitals, daily shopping and other practical needs. An advertised nearby facility is different from one that is operational and accessible.
Documented developments, with their source, stage and latest verification date. Proposals and completed infrastructure will not be treated as equivalent.
Relevant air quality, flood exposure and available soil or environmental evidence. Coverage, measurement limitations and unknowns must stay visible.
Documented delivery history and relevant project outcomes. Brand recognition alone is not evidence of execution quality.
Relevant filings, approvals and compliance evidence after the Gatekeeper review. Foundational issues remain subject to gates or caps; other points cannot cancel them out.
Price in relation to usable area, specifications, quality, amenities and overall project fundamentals. Price per square foot alone cannot explain value.
“What will everyday life here actually feel like?”
Does this project deserve the investor’s capital? The Investment lens examines entry valuation, income potential, delivery risk and the ability to exit.
10 PROPOSED PILLARS WEIGHTS NOT YET SETDocumented legal and approval risks that could affect capital, ownership or a future sale. Gatekeeper restrictions apply before ordinary scoring.
Relevant delivery history, delays and execution evidence. The assessment should connect these risks to the investor’s intended holding period.
Comparable properties with clearly identified area measures, dates and transaction or asking-price sources. Asking prices should not be presented as completed transactions.
Relevant historical price evidence with its period, sample and limitations. Past appreciation will not be presented as a prediction or promised return.
Rental income in relation to acquisition cost. Gross figures, estimated costs, vacancy assumptions and any net calculation need clear definitions.
Evidence of the relevant tenant market, competing supply and demand drivers. A rental listing alone cannot establish tenant demand or an achieved rent.
Evidence of resale activity, competing inventory and the depth of potential buyers. Missing transaction evidence must remain an explicit limitation.
Existing transport and access to employment centres relevant to future tenants or buyers. Current access stays separate from planned infrastructure.
Documented infrastructure, employment clusters and other developments, with a stated delivery stage. An announced catalyst is not an assured price increase.
Project quality, configuration, density and relevant location or environmental risks, interpreted in relation to rental demand, ownership costs and resale.
“Is the price justified, and what supports a credible exit?”
These are proposed research categories, not an active rating system. Some evidence is shared between the two lenses; weights and interpretation will differ. No project scores or return forecasts are published in Phase 1.
04 EVIDENCE HAS A STATUS
The distance between a promise and an operating service matters.
Our proposed research standard records the source, delivery stage and verification date of a future-development claim.
A statement to investigate.
A plan, with delivery uncertain.
Check the approval and scope.
Check progress and changes.
Verify access and actual service.
Status is evidence, not a return forecast. Projects may change, stall or be cancelled at any pre-operational stage.
Identify the record behind a claim and what it actually establishes.
Keep publication dates and our verification dates distinct.
Flag gaps and contradictions instead of filling them with confidence.
05 HOW KIRA WILL RESEARCH
Documents establish what is recorded. Site work helps us ask what needs closer investigation.
Experience should shape the questions. A documented methodology should determine the assessment.
Review relevant public filings, approvals, developer history and infrastructure records. Record the source and surface conflicting information.
Examine actual approach roads, access, density, surroundings and observable site conditions. Investigate differences between sales claims and what can be observed.
Apply the finalized Gatekeeper before the relevant scoring methodology. Explain the evidence, applicable restrictions and reasons behind an assessment.
A site visit records observable conditions on a particular date. It does not certify structural quality, materials, legal title or future performance.
06 INDEPENDENCE, BY DESIGN
Our research should answer to the person making the decision.
No builder-funded rankings, paid placement or developer influence over an assessment.
Explore KIRA without handing over your number. This website has no lead form.
Our standard for scored factual inputs: a source you can inspect, with its date and scope.
Site observations are not statutory public records. They will be labelled separately as dated field notes. The rules for using those observations in scores must be resolved before scoring begins; a field note will not be presented as an official record.
THE NEXT CHAPTER NORTH BENGALURU
We’re developing the Gatekeeper and both scoring methodologies before publishing our first independently researched project reports.
PROJECT REPORTS — COMING SOONRevisit the methodology