Issues & Gaps
Attorney review queue
- CriticalOpenidentity
Pseudonym required for Farouk
Fears retaliation from Halvorsen. Do not disclose identity without a protective order.
- HighOpenprivilege
Expert draft must not be produced
Draft expert work product. Confirm it is withheld from the second production and logged correctly.
- HighOpenpossible pleading issueAI raised
¶ 26: 'from the same session' may not be supportable
Access log shows the suppression under a different account.
- MediumOpenpossible pleading issue
¶ 20 does not plead the 'holiday layer' text
The August 6 text is stronger than what ¶ 20 alleges. Consider amending.
Show resolved flags
The Attorney Review Queue.Everything the Workspace Won’t Decide.
Suspected defects in the filed pleading, privilege and confidentiality questions, identities, authentication, damages overlaps: each one raised as a flag with its severity, waiting until a person resolves it and says how.
- HighOpenprivilege
Expert draft must not be produced
Draft expert work product. Confirm it is withheld from the second production and logged correctly.
How it was resolvedIn progressResolve
AI Recommendations.Proposed by an Agent, Decided by a Person.
Facts, timeline entries, contradictions, witness subjects, interview questions and gaps proposed by the agents wait here, each with the agent that proposed it, the sources it rests on and how relevant those sources are.
Nothing a model proposes enters the case record on its own.
← Issues & gaps
Recommendations awaiting a person
Brook & Vale pays $200,000 to Halvorsen
Bank statement entry dated 3 October 2025.
Who approved Halvorsen's Q4 invoice descriptions
Brandt signed the Q4 report and wrote the 29 January email calling the revenue 'consulting'. She is likely to know who decided the description.
Ask Castellano what Halvorsen told Northstar the $210,000 was for
The invoice says 'platform consulting — forecasting continuity'. Northstar's confirmation says it paid for Tempo.
Complaint ¶ 27 (use of exported artifacts) rests on information and belief
No document yet shows the exported files reached Rennick. The Slack message and Cole's draft support similarity, not the path.
Screened Before You See It.House Rules, Checked Every Time.
Each recommendation is screened for an uncited assertion, wrongdoing stated as fact rather than as an allegation, an unlabeled inference, or a citation to something that does not exist in the matter. What the screening catches is shown on the recommendation.
Accepting one that broke a rule takes a written reason.
Kane misappropriated Tempo’s seasonality layer for Rennick.
Kane asked Desai to bring her notes on the holiday layer, and a Rennick contractor later wrote about porting the seasonality layer into Cadence.
R4 — allegation, not conclusion. States wrongdoing as established fact. Rewrite as what the pleading alleges. “Kane misappropriated Tempo’s seasonality layer for Rennick.”
Accepted, Logged by Name.Acceptance Is What Creates the Record.
Accept a recommendation, with a note if you like, and it enters the record. Reject it and it does not. Either way the decision is logged against your name.
Halvorsen's partner account downloaded integration SDK 4.1.2 five days before the bulk export.
The access log shows an SDK download on 28 August 2025 before the 2 September export. The download itself was permitted under Tier 3. This is an inference that the account was being prepared for the export; it is not stated in the log.