Statistical review and second opinion on your analysis before you submit the paper or defend the thesis. I catch the errors that sink a paper in review. PhD, prioritized report.
An expert audit of an analysis you (or your team) already ran, before you submit to the journal or defend the thesis. I check whether the chosen test is correct, whether assumptions hold, whether the reporting follows APA 7, and whether there are gaps a Q1 reviewer would catch. You get a report with prioritized issues and how to fix them.
A review happens BEFORE you submit (it prevents rejection); a reviewer response happens AFTER, once you have the comments. And it differs from a full analysis in that here I do not start from scratch: you already have results and I validate them.
Choice of test or model for your design, assumptions (normality, homoscedasticity, independence, multicollinearity), sample-size and power justification, effect sizes and confidence intervals, APA 7 reporting, consistency of tables and figures, code reproducibility, and the typical reviewer-2 red flags.
Before submitting to an indexed journal, before your thesis defense, after a desk reject to understand what failed, or simply when your supervisor is not a methodologist and no one has looked at the analyses critically.
Per project, with a fixed price after a free diagnostic. A review is usually cheaper than a full analysis because the work is already done; scope depends on the number and complexity of the analyses to audit.