Decision defensibility, before the notice is delivered
Pre-termination defensibility review for German employers · Verfahrenscheck by ARAM Algorithm

Know if the Kündigung holds — before it goes out.

Verfahrenscheck runs the termination file against the eight statutory gates German courts test it on. Each gate passes, fails, or flags a gap — silence is never a pass. An unflagged gap is what voids a correct decision and becomes Annahmeverzug you never forecast.

§102 BetrVG §626 Abs. 2 BGB §1 KSchG SGB IX AGG
Submit a matter See a sample read (de-identified)

One live matter, de-identified locally, documented read in 72 hours. The engine runs on your own device — AI is used only to build it, never on a client matter. HR can start it — no legal sign-off needed to generate the de-identified read.

Procedural completeness review (Tier 1) · not Rechtsberatung

The output is not “here is the answer.” The output is here is what is defensible — a per-finding map of evidence, gate, and BAG warrant. Inspectable end to end.

  1. Built from 50BAG decisions 500 planned
  2. Evaluates 8 gates 53 sub-gates 78 evidence codes
  3. Produces Onedefensibility report Three views planned
  4. Delivered 72 htypical turnaround, file to report

On-device · raw documents never leave the device · no cloud inference — see Security & data handling →

Start from where you sit.

Each seat has two ways in: read the walkthrough written for your role, or — if you’re not ready to bring a file — run the 3-minute scenario check first.

For HR LeadershipKnow the cost before you signSee the exposure while the decision can still change. §102 hearing, Personalakte, chronology, and Annahmeverzug exposure, in one read.See the Annahmeverzug bill before the notice goes out — not after the Kammertermin.HR lens → 3-min checkWhere would your last termination flag?
For In-house CounselThe file external counsel can usePrivilege-preserving by design — counsel-submitted matters and employer-submitted employee data handled as separate intake regimes. Procedural completeness, with the boundary made explicit in the audit trail.Lawyers spend the hour on judgment, not on reconstruction.In-house lens → 3-min checkA procedural-defect self-audit
Are you their employment lawyer? Read it the way the other side will Every finding traced to control, authority, and evidentiary basis. Inspectable like a Schriftsatz, not a chatbot summary. Pressure-test the file before opposing counsel does — or bring a client’s matter in with the chronology already reconstructed. Either way, you spend the hour on judgment, not on chronology. Fachanwalt lens → 3-min checkWhere would this file fail under cross-examination?

Eight gates. One fail-closed standard.

Each gate is anchored to a statutory provision or established authority. Where authority cannot be verified, the gate flags the limitation rather than asserting certainty. Same methodology, every matter, every manager, every site.

  • G0Special Protection Screen · §17 MuSchG · §168 SGB IX
  • G1Works Council Hearing · §102 BetrVG
  • G2Social Justification · §1 KSchG · §626 BGB
  • G3Ultima Ratio · Verhältnismäßigkeit
  • G4Consistency · Equal-treatment principle
  • G5Co-Determination Tech · §87(1) Nr. 6 BetrVG
  • G6Model Transparency · GDPR Art. 22 · AI Act
  • G7Anti-Discrimination · §1, §22 AGG
See the full gate architecture

Anchored in published BAG decisions

The law behind the gates.

The ruleset is built from published Bundesarbeitsgericht decisions — one per dismissal route. Each gate traces to a named, verifiable authority you can read, not an assertion you have to trust.

  • BAG 2 AZR 736/13 ⚖️ Bundes-
    arbeitsgericht

    Verhaltensbedingt · Conduct

    A conduct dismissal stands on the warning record — and on a §102 hearing judged on the employer’s actual decision basis, not a reconstruction assembled after the fact.

  • BAG 6 AZR 157/22 ⚖️ Bundes-
    arbeitsgericht

    Betriebsbedingt · §17 KSchG

    A termination issued before the mass-dismissal notice is on file cannot take effect — the file breaks a step before the merits are ever reached.

  • BAG 2 AZR 55/25 ⚖️ Bundes-
    arbeitsgericht

    Außerordentlich · §626 II BGB

    A summary dismissal can be lost on the calendar, not the facts — the two-week clock runs from the knowledge date, and an undocumented hearing attempt cannot stop it.

  • BAG 2 AZR 505/09 ⚖️ Bundes-
    arbeitsgericht

    Leitender Angestellter · §5(3) BetrVG

    Executive status proven by title alone collapses to an ordinary dismissal — and the §102 hearing that was never run becomes mandatory in hindsight.

The challenge is not generating recommendations. The challenge is defending decisions.

The same file always produces the same read — today and in five years. Nothing about the verdict is generated, guessed, or quietly softened, which is what lets the audit trail hold up when someone tests it later.

Same file, same read
Every matter, every site
The same record always produces the same result — no narrative, no scoring quietly softening the verdict. The read you get is the read your lawyer, your works council, or an auditor gets.
AI never sees your file
Built from BAG case law, not run on it
AI is used once, up front, to turn BAG rulings into a fixed, tested ruleset — reviewed before it ships. It never runs on a live client matter.
Local · on-device
Windows desktop, fully offline
The engine runs on the user's own hardware. No cloud inference. Raw documents never leave the device.
Human-in-the-loop
Indeterminates route to a human
The system identifies what requires professional judgement and routes it to a human; the indeterminate is never resolved automatically.

What we check. What we don't.

We test whether a dismissal will hold up procedurally — not how a judge will feel about it. Every boundary below is deliberate, and every gap is named.

What we check
Germany · 8 checkpoints · 4 dismissal types
26 procedural checks across every German dismissal route — conduct, health, redundancy, and extraordinary. Covers the core employment, co-determination, anti-discrimination, disability, data-protection, and parental-leave statutes. Cross-border cases are out of scope.
What we don't model
Reputational cost · two niche clauses · judge temperament
We don't estimate reputational cost. We don't score retaliation claims (§612a) or business-transfer protections (§613a), and we don't predict how a specific chamber will rule. Back-pay and severance estimates are on our roadmap. Every gap is listed openly — nothing is quietly skipped.
What we flag, not score
The 3-week filing deadline · good-faith defences
The 3-week deadline to challenge a dismissal (§4 KSchG), and good-faith / fairness arguments (§242, §138 BGB), need human judgement. We surface them as notes for your lawyer — we don't pass or fail them on our own.
Not legal advice
We stop where your lawyer starts
This is a procedural completeness review, not a legal opinion. When you need binding advice, a named specialist employment lawyer (Fachanwalt) takes it from there — on a separate engagement.
Now onboarding a select first cohort · German employers and their counsel

Run one file through the gates.

Bring one live matter. Generate the de-identified intake locally. Receive a documented defensibility read, typically within 72 hours.

Submit a matter Book a 15-minute walkthrough

Prefer to read first? See a sample read (de-identified).

Advising on the file rather than signing it? Pressure-test it the way the bench will →