Data Recovery Case File · Trust, Practice & Honest Limits · Why Nobody Guarantees It
A Guarantee Is Withheld Because the Outcome Is Not Within Anyone's Control
His enquiry contains a price objection and a second concern that deserves answering more carefully than the first. A drive assessed elsewhere as having damaged heads, where he was "quoted an extortionate amount of money, with no guarantee of repair", the work described as fitting donor heads to extract the data — and the drive is still with the assessing party. The absence of a guarantee is not a hedge, and understanding why makes the figure easier to judge.
| Media | Portable hard drive assessed as requiring head assembly replacement — currently held by the assessing party; quotation issued without a guaranteed outcome |
| Reported situation | Portable drive assessed elsewhere · head damage identified · donor head replacement proposed as the method · quotation received and considered high · outcome not guaranteed by the quoting party · drive remaining in that party's possession · assessment report available · alternative quotation sought |
| Fault class | Head assembly failure requiring donor replacement — outcome contingent on surface condition, which is unknown until the drive is opened |
| Equipment used | Fee structure explained against the point at which outcome becomes knowable · laminar flow bench inspection with head and platter surfaces assessed before any rotation · matched donor head assembly fitted where surfaces permitted · imaging under capped timeouts with occupied regions taken first · charging structured so that the balance falls due only on success |
The decode: why no one guarantees this, and how the fee should be structured
Why a guarantee cannot honestly be given: the decisive fact is unknown at quoting time. Whether the surfaces beneath the failed heads are intact cannot be established without opening the drive under filtered air.
Why opening it is not done first and then quoted: opening is the work. The bench time, the filtered environment and the donor are consumed by looking, so a figure quoted after inspection would already include most of the cost.
What that means for anyone quoting: they are pricing an attempt. The parts and the labour are committed before the outcome is known, which is why the honest position is a figure with a stated risk rather than a promise.
Why a guarantee offered on this work would be worth suspecting: it would have to be priced in. Guaranteeing an outcome that cannot be assured means charging everyone enough to cover the failures.
Now the fee structure, which is the part that matters practically: it should divide the risk. A proportion covering parts and labour payable upfront, and the balance payable only on a successful recovery.
Why that is fairer than either extreme: it matches who controls what. The lab commits its parts and time regardless; the customer pays the larger part only for a result.
Why a full no-recovery-no-fee promise is not offered on donor work specifically: the donor is consumed. A matched assembly is stock that cannot be reused, and work requiring it is priced differently from work that does not.
What he should compare between quotations, rather than the headline: what is included and when it falls due. Whether the figure covers the donor, whether it is fixed after assessment, and what is payable if nothing is recovered.
Why the report he was offered is worth obtaining: it saves repeating work. An existing assessment identifying the fault and the donor requirement is a genuine head start.
What is worth establishing before moving the drive: its current state. A drive that has already been opened travels differently from one that has not, and knowing which applies changes how it should be handled.
On the bench
The fee structure was explained against the point at which outcome becomes knowable — surface condition beneath failed heads being undeterminable without opening the drive under filtered air, which itself consumes the bench time, the environment and the donor, so any figure prices an attempt with parts and labour committed in advance. Charging was structured so that the balance falls due only on success, dividing the risk according to who controls which part of it.
The outcome
The fee structure explained against knowability, surfaces assessed under filtered air before rotation, and a matched donor fitted where surfaces permitted. Free assessment, one fixed written figure including VAT, 50% of parts and labour upfront with the balance only on successful recovery. The decode: nobody guarantees this because the deciding fact is not knowable until the drive is open — and opening it is the work. What can be structured is when you pay, not whether it will succeed.
Judging a recovery quotation
Compare what's included and when it falls due rather than the headline figure. Nobody guarantees head replacement work, and that isn't a hedge: whether the surfaces beneath the failed heads are intact can't be known without opening the drive under filtered air, and doing that consumes the bench time, the environment and the donor. A guarantee would simply mean charging everyone enough to cover the failures. Ask what proportion is payable upfront and what falls due only on success.
Ask how it is structured — call Cambridge Data Recovery on 01223 655015; fee explained against when the outcome becomes knowable, surfaces assessed under filtered air, balance payable only on success.
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.