We can't open the courts' files. But we can build an open, structured, fair public record of conduct — and make the aggregate visible for the first time.
The model
Vitreo borrows the form of an electronic civil-court docket — case numbers, a chronological record of entries, numbered exhibits — because that form is what makes a body of complaints legible, searchable, and credible. Vitreo is not a court and issues no binding judgments. It is a transparency publisher with a structured intake, evidence requirements, and a fair right of reply.
Four commitments
Every material allegation must link to at least one supporting exhibit before it can be published. Claims are clearly labeled as the complainant's allegation, not Vitreo's finding.
Anyone named — attorney or judicial official — always has a verified, free, permanent right to respond on the same docket. Responding is never paywalled.
Publication rules, the evidence standard, and any AI assessment's reasoning are visible. Corrections are new entries on an append-only record — never silent edits.
PII detection and redaction, sealed-record checks, risk tiering, and a clear takedown pathway are built in from the start, not bolted on.
How a complaint moves
A guided process keeps quality high and treats everyone fairly.
A guided intake helps a complainant state what happened, break it into discrete allegations, and attach evidence to each — articulating their own claims, never inventing them.
Automated checks (each allegation cited, PII scan, sealed-record check) plus human editorial review proportional to risk. An advisory assessment flags gaps before anything goes live.
The case enters the public docket with a number and a chronological record. The respondent is notified and the reply channel opens — and stays open.
Reviewers, fact-checkers, legal advisors, researchers, and funders make a fair public record possible.