Substantiate each argument.
What actually supports my position?
Connect each assertion to passages that support, qualify or contradict it. Prepare an argument whose support you can show and whose limits you can discuss.
OPENPROOF LEGAL LAW FIRMS & LEGAL DEPARTMENTS
What can you substantiate?
What could challenge your position?
Map the people involved, compare accounts and examine causal links to substantiate your arguments, anticipate objections and prepare your strategy.
FOLLOW THE ACTION
First, find the thread.
Three founders. A shared history. Then a €480,000 claim. Let’s see how to move from that overall account to the facts that need examining.
The tour unfolds automatically · 14 seconds · no sound. Pause and chapters remain available.Fictional case · scripted actions and analysis · no engine running
Your client asks: “What can we substantiate? What might challenge our position? How should we act?” The OpenProof method connects sources, decisions and power dynamics to prepare a supported response — and explain why you choose that course.
Start my 8-day trial 8 days free · no payment to start. Trial in a test environment, with fictional documents.
SUBSTANTIATE A POSITIONANTICIPATE CHALLENGESINFORM YOUR CHOICES
WHAT THE METHOD BRINGS TO YOUR STRATEGY
A position to substantiate.
Its weaknesses to understand.
Value lies in the connections: between a claim and its support, authority and a decision, an event and its consequences. The OpenProof method structures that view of the whole case.
FROM CASE FILE TO REASONING
01 / 06
Should he answer for everything?
Three founders. Two claim €480,000 from the third: spending, lost customers and disruption. Follow the sources to prepare his response.
Fictional claim · amount demanded, not an established debt · S08THE SAME CASE · THE INQUIRY CONTINUESDid he decide alone?
01The allegation · S08€180,000 in spending is attributed to him.
0210 January · S02All three founders had approved a €120,000 budget.
0330 June · S03The total reaches €180,000. The initial approval does not resolve the €60,000 overrun.
Read the sources S02 · S03 · S08
S02 · Investment minutes
All three founders approve an investment capped at €120,000. A monthly update must flag any risk of overspending.View in the fictional case ↗
S03 · Spending schedule
Spending attributed to the investment totals €180,000, including €60,000 above the original budget. Supporting records for each line still need to be reconciled.View in the fictional case ↗
S08 · Claim presented by two founders
We claim €480,000: €180,000 in spending, €200,000 in lost revenue and €100,000 for disruption. These losses are attributed to the third founder.View in the fictional case ↗
THE NEXT QUESTIONApproval was collective. But did he warn them in time?
Anticipate challenges.
What could weaken my reasoning?
Examine adverse material and alternative explanations. Prepare for difficult questions before discussing the case with your client, the other party or leadership.
THE NEXT QUESTIONAfter the warning, who could still authorise the resources?
Understand the balance of power.
Who could act, decide or withhold information?
Place roles, authority and dependencies in time. Distinguish documented relationships from hypotheses about interests and intentions.
THE NEXT QUESTIONAuthority changed. Does that explain the lost customers?
Focus further investigation.
Which source could change the reading of the case?
Identify missing information and consequential checks. Define what to ask the client, reconcile or examine before choosing an option.
THE NEXT QUESTIONThe claims rely on different sources. What should be discussed, item by item?
Prepare for negotiation.
What leverage do we have, and what responses should we consider?
Examine objectives, dependencies and points of disagreement. Test each option against its support and possible responses to prepare discussions, without presuming the other party’s intentions.
THE NEXT QUESTIONWith this support and these weaknesses, what should the professional receive?
Make your advice explainable.
How can we explain our chosen course to the client or leadership?
Present the options, their support, their weaknesses and the checks still needed. Give your client or leadership the basis to understand your recommendation and decide with you.
AND FOR YOU?In your case, which decision do you need to substantiate?
At your pace · choose a topic
Build the reading. Keep ownership of the decision.PREPARED ILLUSTRATION · NO ANALYSIS RUN
ACTOR DYNAMICS IN SERVICE OF DECISIONS
Your options have support.
And consequences to examine.
Support a claim, challenge a causal link, complete the record or explore negotiation: each option deserves examination against the facts, the interests involved and possible responses.
Game theory provides a framework for questions: if one party takes this course, how might the others respond? Scenarios remain hypotheses to test. The strategic choice remains yours.
Explore the “My clients’ cases” method ↗Hypotheses to test. The decision remains yours.
TWO SETTINGS. ONE STRATEGIC STANDARD.
Defend a position.
Inform a decision.
Prepare the response. Explain it to your client.
Test the client’s account against the sources, identify issues needing investigation and make the options understandable. A working foundation for case strategy and review with colleagues.
Connect the analysis to the business decision.
Reconstruct decisions, documented responsibilities and areas of uncertainty. Prepare a decision leadership can understand and a case file external counsel can take forward with its references.
OPENPROOF LEGAL
Your next case.
A fresh perspective.
Explore the method for eight days, using a fictional case.
Test environment · fictional documents only. Pro+ under validation; purchases are not open.
A METHOD CONCEIVED AND LED BY GERSENDE RYARD DE PARCEY
Experience in practice.
A commitment to evidence.
Leadership, transformation, governance and crisis situations: experience of decisions and power dynamics, extended through a method for documentary reconstruction. Work with GREYC and Université de Caen Normandie provides a research foundation to integrate and evaluate.
Founder and research ↗The method grows through challenge.
Examine the public case and contribute a source-based observation. Contributions help challenge readings and clarify what still needs checking.
Contribute to the public case ↗Demonstration, method and product availability
This is a scripted tour of a fictional case: excerpts, readings and possible responses are prepared. No analysis engine runs during the tour. The benefits describe the method’s purpose; they are neither measured time savings nor a promise of legal success. The complete automated workflow on new cases and Pro+ scope remain to be validated. Purchases are not open.
Legal expertise, source verification and decisions remain with the professional. The My clients’ cases guided method is presented in the Universe; its availability is separate from software availability.
Explore the application presentation ↗