OPENPROOF · BY TRUTHXInvestment minutes
All three founders approve an investment capped at €120,000. A monthly update must flag any risk of overspending.Read the fictional source
COFOUNDER DISPUTE · FICTIONAL CASE
They had built the business together.
Now one of them is being asked to answer for its losses.
Spending, lost customers, a disputed handover. His role, shares, reputation and personal finances are at stake. How can he answer years of allegations without losing the facts in the conflict?
Fictional educational scenario. People, dates, amounts and excerpts are invented; findings are prewritten. This walkthrough does not demonstrate automated analysis by the application.
Examine the caseTry the guided interactive review — 15 min
Their shared history has become a dispute over each person’s responsibility.
There were three of them. Each brought something the others did not: expertise, customers, the ability to organise and grow the business. They put time, money and part of their future into the same venture.
At first, decisions rested on trust. Roles evolved as needs changed. Some responsibilities were written down; others took shape as urgent problems arose.
Then results deteriorated. Disagreements over spending and priorities became personal. Each began counting what they had contributed, what they had sacrificed and what the others owed them.
Two founders eventually ask the third to leave. They blame him for excessive spending, lost customers and delays. A substantial financial claim accompanies these allegations.
He remembers decisions discussed together, investments approved and difficulties reported. He accepts that he may have made mistakes. But he cannot understand how he could be held responsible for all of it.
His place in the business, the value of his shares, his reputation and his personal finances are now at stake.
He must respond to an account that gathers several years of business activity under one accusation. For each allegation, someone needs to recover who knew what, who decided, what resources were available and what actually happened next.
01 · SEPARATE THE ALLEGATIONS
One broad accusation. Several different questions.
In this invented example, the two founders claim €480,000. The first task is to separate each item and recover who makes the claim, its basis and its sources.
- Excessive spending€180,000 claimed. Was the investment decision made alone?
- Lost customers and revenue€200,000 claimed. Can every customer departure be attributed to him?
- Unfulfilled responsibilitiesWas he expected to deliver without all the necessary resources?
- Departure and disruption€100,000 claimed. What preceded the breakup and what resulted from his departure?
- Total amount and attributionWho claims what, from whom, and on what documentary basis?
All amounts are fictional. A claimed amount is not an established debt.
02 · COMPARE THE SOURCES
A collective decision. A late personal warning.
Message from the founder facing the claim
I should have flagged the risk of overspending sooner. I was waiting for the final quotations.Read the fictional source
Both elements must remain visible.
The initial approval does not automatically cover overspending. A late warning does not establish that every loss resulted from that delay.
03 · KEEP HUMAN JUDGEMENT
What supports him. What counts against him. What is missing.
Supporting elements
Budget approved by all three; authority later restricted; one customer also mentions an internal cause.
Adverse elements
Acknowledged late warning; overspending to explain; two incomplete files at handover.
Missing material
Overrun approvals, records supporting the losses, complete correspondence and evidence of handover receipt.
Review must assess each element and its scope. No finding of liability is inferred from this scenario.
Place the acts in context.
See the five review questionsHow did the business operate? Who could decide, and with what resources? What existed before the breakup? The excerpts leave these questions partly open. An earlier difficulty does not rule out later aggravation.
Explore the five dimensions of the review04 · HAND OVER A REVIEWABLE RECORD
The conflict remains complex. The record becomes readable.
The next reader can find a timeline, five separate allegations, eight fictional excerpts and the unresolved questions. Adverse evidence stays alongside supporting material.
- Decisions and authorityWho approved what, when, and with which resources.
- Allegations and sourcesEach observation links to an identifiable excerpt.
- Disputed amounts€180,000 + €200,000 + €100,000: three calculations to examine without presuming validity.
- Open questionsCausation, missing supporting material, attribution and possible double counting.
The brief and file were written for this demonstration. They are not reports produced by the engine.
05 · TRY AN INTEGRITY CHECK
Change the summary. Compare the copy.
Your browser fingerprints this complete scenario, then compares it after a local change. Nothing is sent.
The interactive check requires JavaScript. The file remains available to download.
- Reference fingerprint
- —
- Current fingerprint
- —
The original summary is retained until you change it.
This check detects a difference from the loaded copy. It proves neither the authenticity of evidence, the truth of events nor liability. The reference comes from the same site; replacing both copies defeats this check.
Separate technical exercise: check the original Atlas RPOOPENPROOF LEGAL · PILOT SUBJECT TO REVIEW
Your story is different. Do the questions feel familiar?
Describe the dispute and what you need to clarify. Scope will be reviewed before any confidential documents or payment are exchanged.
Purchases and subscriptions are not open yet.