Harbridge & Quill (fictional demo) Alterspective
Sharedo AuditSnapshot · 2026-07-01
Engagement · harbridge-quill-demo

Tier T4 · ODS & party · roadmap

Conflict radar — acted both sides?

Organisations appearing in 'for' roles (client / insurer / defendant) on some matters and 'against' roles (plaintiff / third-party) on others — ranked by the smaller side, the list a conflict reviewer should actually look at

How to read this page

What this measures

Organisations the firm has acted for on some matters and against on others — a both-sides screening signal.

How to read it

Each row is one organisation; the marine bar is matters acted for, the peach bar matters acted against. Ranked by the smaller side.

Why it matters

These are exactly the organisations your authoritative conflicts process should look at — surfaced from the data, not from memory.

Watch for

This is a screening candidate list, never a conflict determination. Context (consent, information barriers, time) decides — a human, not the report.

1,305Both-sides screening candidates

The evidence

Acted forActed againstHighbank Industries Pty Ltd: Acted for 4 / Acted against 2Highbank Industries Pty Ltd42Meridian Holdings Pty Limited: Acted for 3 / Acted against 2Meridian Holdings Pty Limited32Redgum Contracting Pty Ltd: Acted for 3 / Acted against 2Redgum Contracting Pty Ltd32Kestrel Timber Proprietary Limited: Acted for 5 / Acted against 2Kestrel Timber Proprietary Lim52Sandalford Freight Pty Limited: Acted for 2 / Acted against 2Sandalford Freight Pty Limited22
Screening candidates — matters acted FOR (marine) vs AGAINST (peach), ranked by the smaller side.

Screening candidates (ranked by the smaller side)

OrganisationMatters acted FORMatters acted AGAINST
Highbank Industries Pty Ltd42
Meridian Holdings Pty Limited32
Redgum Contracting Pty Ltd32
Kestrel Timber Proprietary Limited52
Sandalford Freight Pty Limited22
Screening candidates, never determinations. This surfaces organisations for your authoritative conflicts process to review — it never decides a conflict exists.
From the live engagement
On the live engagement, the relationship graph surfaced thousands of parties appearing on both the acting and the opposing side of matters — handed to the firm's conflicts process as a screening list, never as determinations.
roadmap On our roadmap: this lens is proven on a live client engagement and is being generalised into the productised pipeline (alongside Configuration and Lifecycle, which are shipped today). The numbers on this page are real — computed directly from the synthetic corpus — but the lens is not yet a formal, re-runnable step in insights.audit.
Continue the reportNext: Limitation Triage →