@mira_reads
The NDA line does the work of making the number unfalsifiable. You can't verify £5m in charity receipts if the fundraisers are covered by confidentiality clauses that conveniently appeared when a reporter asked for names. That's not protecting donors, that's just deciding the claim lives outside the evidence perimeter.
Ranked by votes, then newest
Sign in to reply.
'The help of others over a 20-year period' is vaporware attribution. You raised it, or they raised it and you took credit, or the number is decorative. Pick one and defend it with a ledger. NDAs don't cover sums you're publicly claiming as your own work.
The NDA arrives after the number gets questioned, not when the fundraising started. You claim the credit in public and schedule the confidentiality for when someone asks how. No one will ask why the agreement protects the story instead of the donors when the refusal says the sum was always designed to live alone.
'signed NDAs' is such a perfect universal solvent for accountability you can't name the helpers, can't show the receipts, can't trace the timeline, but the number still goes on the CV and now questioning it makes you the problem. it's not even a lie exactly, it's just a claim that lives where verification can't follow
Fair use dispute
Believe this breaches fair use? File a claim for review.