Phase 2 · The preparation layer
Revela
Aria keeps the record. Ignita reads it. Revela is what makes it usable by the next person: a source-linked preparation packet a worker can carry into an agency intake without losing a single origin.
Preview. Not legal advice. Attorney-reviewed: false.
What Revela does
A record is only useful if someone else can follow it.
01 · Assemble
The chronology becomes a document.
Every kept event carries its date, its actors and its marking. Revela orders them, numbers them, and leaves out nothing the worker chose to keep.
02 · Attach
Each assertion keeps its exhibit.
Exhibits are indexed, quoted and labeled with where they came from. Remove one and the reading changes in front of you — support is never assumed.
03 · Account
What the record cannot carry stays visible.
Completeness is reported element by element, with the open items named. Revela does not fill a gap with confident language.
The working preview
Build a packet now, on a real reported matter.
This is the same assembly the private Case Lab runs on a real record, working here on public-record material. Include or exclude anything and watch the completeness reading answer.
Working preview
Choose a publicly reported matter, then choose what belongs in the packet. Revela assembles the chronology, the exhibit index and the completeness reading, and every line keeps the source it came from.
Chronology
4/4 includedExhibit index
3/3 includedignita-completeness-v1 · illustrative
94/100
4 events · 2 marked · 3 exhibits
Reported or opposed conduct
24/25Two dated internal complaints on the employer's own records.
Employer awareness
20/20Complaints went to company officials, not peers.
Adverse change
23/25Duty reassignment plus an unpaid suspension.
Closeness in time
18/20Reassignment within days of the first complaint.
Consistency of the record
9/10Employer documents corroborate the sequence.
Open items before filing
- — Comparator evidence on how other operators' duties were assigned.
- — Contemporaneous notes from the complaint meetings themselves.
Preview. Not legal advice. Attorney-reviewed: false.
Preview the assembled packet
REVELA — PREPARATION PACKET (PREVIEW) Preview. Not legal advice. Attorney-reviewed: false. Matter: Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White Citation: 548 U.S. 53 · Supreme Court of the United States, 2006 Matter type: Retaliation Jurisdiction: Federal · Title VII Posture: Jury verdict for the employee, affirmed Framework: ignita-completeness-v1 (illustrative) 1. STATEMENT OF THE RECORD A forklift operator — the only woman in her maintenance department — complained that her supervisor made repeated sexually offensive remarks. She was removed from forklift duty to more arduous standard track labor, and later suspended without pay for 37 days before the suspension was reversed and back pay awarded. 2. CHRONOLOGY 1. [Step 1] Internal complaint about a supervisor's conduct (marked: protected activity / key conduct) The employee reported repeated sexually offensive remarks by her immediate supervisor to company officials. 2. [Step 2] Removed from forklift duty Days after the internal complaint she was reassigned from operating the forklift to standard, more physically arduous track labor at the same pay grade. 3. [Step 3] Second internal charge filed (marked: protected activity / key conduct) She filed a charge asserting the reassignment was retaliatory. 4. [Step 4] Suspended without pay Following a dispute with another supervisor she was suspended without pay for 37 days; the suspension was later reversed with back pay. 3. EXHIBIT INDEX EX-01 · Reported decision · statement of facts (Public record) Quoted: "The reassignment kept her pay grade but moved her to “more arduous and dirtier” track labor." Why it is here: Establishes an adverse change with no pay reduction attached. EX-02 · Company suspension and grievance record (Employer document) Quoted: "37 days without pay, later reversed with full back pay." Why it is here: Reversal did not erase the adverse effect — the interval itself carried the harm. EX-03 · Internal complaint records (Employer document) Quoted: "Two separate protected complaints, each followed by an adverse action." Why it is here: Recurrence, not a single coincidence in time. 4. WHAT THE SELECTED RECORD SUPPORTS — Reported or opposed conduct: 24/25. Two dated internal complaints on the employer's own records. — Employer awareness: 20/20. Complaints went to company officials, not peers. — Adverse change: 23/25. Duty reassignment plus an unpaid suspension. — Closeness in time: 18/20. Reassignment within days of the first complaint. — Consistency of the record: 9/10. Employer documents corroborate the sequence. 5. OPEN ITEMS BEFORE FILING — Comparator evidence on how other operators' duties were assigned. — Contemporaneous notes from the complaint meetings themselves. 6. LIMITS OF THIS PACKET Assembled from public-record material for demonstration. Completeness figures describe how fully the selected record supports each framework element. They are not a prediction of liability, case value or outcome. Preview. Not legal advice. Attorney-reviewed: false.
Where it sits in the journey
First the record. Then the reading. Then the packet.
Revela never invents a fact and never predicts an outcome. It carries forward only what the record supports, and says plainly what is still missing. Every output leaves the system labeled as a preview and unreviewed by an attorney.