Quick clarification needed
I’m ready to write a comprehensive, 600–800 word news story about a tech firm whose newly announced CTO was indicted and the company later claimed he was never its CTO. To meet journalistic standards and avoid fabricating facts I need a few specific details and sources before I proceed.
What I need from you
Please provide the following so I can produce an accurate, sourced article with dates, quotes and analysis:
- Company name (legal entity and common brand name)
- Full name of the individual indicted
- Date and jurisdiction of the indictment (e.g., U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, indictment filed on MM/DD/YYYY)
- Exact charges or a link to the charging document or reliable reporting
- Company statements or press releases (links or full text) where the company announces the hire and later says he was never CTO
- Key products, investors, or market facts you want included (e.g., Series A date, valuation, notable customers)
- Any preferred experts or analysts to quote, or permission to reach out to common industry analysts and legal experts for comment
If you don’t have full details
If you don’t have all items above, I can still proceed in one of three ways: (1) write a tightly sourced article based only on verifiable public records you provide; (2) draft an analytical piece about the implications of such a scenario using anonymized or hypothetical specifics, clearly labeled as analysis; or (3) prepare an evergreen feature on how companies should handle executive vetting and crisis communications, using similar past cases as precedent. Tell me which you prefer.
Why these details matter
To comply with accuracy and libel standards, I cannot invent names, dates, or charges. Specifics allow inclusion of precise legal context (e.g., whether allegations are for wire fraud, securities fraud, or immigration-related charges), timeline reconstruction (announcement date, hiring paperwork, indictment date), and direct quotes from corporate statements. That enables balanced coverage with both legal and industry perspectives—critical for readers and for SEO value.
Next steps and turnaround
Once you supply the requested facts or choose one of the alternative approaches, I’ll draft a 600–800 word article with the following structure: lead paragraph (who/what/when/where/why), background on the company and product, timeline of events, expert perspectives (legal and industry analysts), implications for investors/customers/hires, and a conclusion outlining next steps. I can include internal linking suggestions (e.g., prior coverage of the company, related security/HR vetting stories) and tags for publication.
Reply with the company name and any sources you have, or tell me which of the three alternative approaches you want and I’ll proceed.
About the Author
