# Internal-workings scrub — public-vs-internal doctrine

Public-facing documents (business plan, prospectus, deck, term sheet, anything the investor reads) state the **current position** only. The journey to that position, the reasoning behind it, comparisons against prior baselines, open items still being reconciled, and cross-references to internal sections all stay in working documents in the data-room's internal sections.

## Patterns that must NOT appear in public docs

- **Comparison to baseline / prior version.** *"The loss has grown from -£282.6k to -£323.1k because…"*, *"Total opex (M0 customer-success hire adds £40,500 vs the M10 model worksheet baseline)"*.
- **Process commentary.** *"Numbers below use the model's published figures pending the reconciled rebuild"*, *"reconciliation pending"*, *"open item, not actioned here"*, *"see Section X critical note and Section Y contingency levers for the reconciliation paths"*.
- **Internal cross-references to scaffolding.** *"see Section 12.3 critical note"*, *"see Section 12.6 contingency levers"* when the linked content itself is process-talk rather than substance.
- **Discrepancy resolution narratives.** *"The earlier '£0.01 vs £0.001 nominal' note is resolved by treating the £4,500 as share premium"*.
- **"Open Q" or "Open item" markers in body text.** Belongs in section READMEs and the office-hours design doc only.
- **Date-coded internal designs.** *"2026-04-22 design"*, *"office-hours design doc"*, *"model worksheet (Appendix A) needs a rebuild"*.
- **"Pre-contingency-lever activation" / "once X is included" hedges in summary tables.**
- **Explanatory parentheticals that name the process.** *"(M10-trigger model did not carry)"* is process commentary and must go.

## What IS acceptable in a public-facing document

- The current position, stated as a fact.
- A footnote citing a source (Companies House, IBISWorld, ICO, etc.) when the figure derives from public data.
- A pointer to a public appendix (titled documents only; not internal-section READMEs).
- Conditions on a forecast figure that an investor needs to know (e.g. "assuming Round 2 closes at M9-M10").

## The same content, internal vs public

| Internal version (working doc) | Public version (business plan) |
|---|---|
| Total operating expenses ~£649,100 (M0 customer-success hire adds £40,500 vs the M10 model worksheet baseline). | Total operating expenses ~£649,100. |
| Year-1 P&L loss has grown from -£282.6k to -£323.1k because the customer-success hire is brought forward from M10 to M0. | Year-1 P&L loss is approximately £323k against revenue of £356k. |
| Cash crosses zero at M8–M9 if Round 2 does not close; the model worksheet's M11 £34k cash low arrives roughly two months earlier under the M0 CS hire structure. | The raise is sized to deliver the Round 2 gating milestones; Round 2 closes at M9 to M10. |

## Recurrence is a P0 violation

In the reference project this rule was violated three times in one session (initial draft used a dated internal design reference; appendix table referenced internal-only documents alongside externally-shareable ones; M0 customer-success hire updates added "model worksheet baseline" comparisons). The pattern: every time the founder adds content or asks for an update, the temptation is to include "what changed and why" alongside the new value. The temptation must be resisted; the public document carries only the new value. The "what changed and why" goes in a sibling internal document if it needs to live somewhere.
