Data Recovery Case File · Trust, Practice & Honest Limits · A Narrower Scope
Imaging Is the Difficult Part, and Interpreting the Filesystem Is Separable From It
This enquiry defines its own scope precisely and correctly. An old drive holding two uncommon partition types that will not power on, where the request is simply "a raw dump of the bytes" — with the explicit undertaking to "take responsibility for mounting the disk image" rather than needing individual files recovered. That is a legitimate scope and a cheaper one, because the expensive part of a recovery is getting the bytes off, not deciding what they mean.
| Media | Older internal drive holding two uncommon partition types — not powering on; byte-level image requested in place of file-level recovery |
| Reported situation | Older internal drive holding two partitions in uncommon formats · drive not powering on · byte-level image requested as the deliverable · file-level recovery explicitly not required · owner undertaking to interpret the image independently · scope and cost queried |
| Fault class | Non-powering drive with delivery scoped to imaging alone — filesystem interpretation excluded by agreement; capture requirements unchanged |
| Equipment used | Scope agreed as imaging only before work began · current draw measured across the start-up cycle on a controlled bench supply · board examined at component level under magnification · imaged write-blocked under strict per-sector timeouts across the full physical extent · unreadable regions logged by offset and supplied with the image |
The decode: why the scope is sound, and what still has to be agreed
Why his division of the work is the correct one: the two halves are genuinely separate. Getting a faulty drive to return its contents is a physical and electronic problem; interpreting what those contents mean is a software one.
Which half carries the cost: the first. Bench time, controlled supplies, timeout-managed reading and repeated passes are what a difficult drive requires.
Why the second half is comparatively cheap: it runs on an image. Once a complete copy exists, interpreting it involves no risk and no special equipment.
Why his filesystems make the division especially sensible: they are uncommon. Interpreting less common formats is specialist work, and he already has the expertise to do it.
What is delivered under this scope: a complete byte-level copy. An image of the full physical extent, including regions no filesystem claims.
What must accompany it and is easily overlooked: a map of what could not be read. An image with unreadable regions filled in is misleading unless those offsets are listed.
Why that matters to someone mounting it himself: he needs to know what to distrust. A file spanning an unreadable region will open and be wrong, and only the offset log reveals which.
Now the part his scope does not change: the drive still will not power on. Whatever prevents it starting must be resolved before any bytes exist to deliver.
Why that is assessed the same way regardless: the fault does not care about the deliverable. Draw measurement and board examination proceed identically.
What the honest caveat is: the image may be incomplete. Where regions cannot be read after repeated passes, the copy reflects that, and the log is the honest account of it.
On the bench
Scope was agreed as imaging only before work began — capture being a physical and electronic problem while interpretation is a software one, with bench time, controlled supplies and timeout-managed reading carrying the cost, and interpretation running risk-free on a completed copy. Uncommon filesystems make the division especially sound where the owner holds that expertise. Unreadable regions were logged by offset and supplied with the image, since filled regions otherwise mislead.
The outcome
Scope agreed as imaging only, the full physical extent captured under strict per-sector timeouts, and unreadable offsets logged and supplied. 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: your division of the work is the right one. Getting the bytes off a faulty drive is the expensive half — and make sure you get the log of what could not be read alongside the image.
Asking for an image rather than a recovery
It's a legitimate scope and usually a cheaper one, since getting the bytes off a faulty drive is the difficult half and interpreting them runs risk-free on a copy afterwards. Insist on one thing though: a log of the offsets that could not be read. An image with unreadable regions filled in looks complete, and a file spanning one of them will open and be silently wrong — only the offset list tells you which parts of the image to distrust.
That scope is fine — call Cambridge Data Recovery on 01223 655015; imaging agreed as the deliverable, full physical extent captured under strict per-sector timeouts, unreadable offsets logged and supplied alongside.
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.