Redress began with a horrible legal ordeal. I believed I was watching lawyers lie in the record: they advanced mutually incompatible factual positions as their narrative changed. It was as if, on day one, their argument depended on the earth being round. By day twenty-two, it depended on the earth being flat. They used each as a supporting fact even though both could not be true at the same time.
Some filings contradicted earlier filings. Some were internally contradictory within the same document. I preserved recordings that captured statements directly at odds with claims in their documents. Even when I placed those contradictions side by side, they were ignored.
The stakes were not abstract. In my experience, children were being harmed, and efforts were being made to take money that disabled veterans relied on. I needed a system that could preserve every source, trace every material assertion, place conflicting statements side by side, and make contradiction, omission, and unsupported narrative much harder to hide.
That need became Redress. It does not determine intent or decide who is truthful. It shows what was said, when it was said, what supports it, and what conflicts with it so people can judge the record instead of whichever story was told last.