The whole board visible
Parties, claims, forums and clocks on one document — the difference between playing a position and playing the game.
Conflict mapping by Aun & Co.: parties, claims, forums, deadlines and leverage drawn onto one strategic document before the first move is made.
Most parties enter conflict seeing only their own grievance. A conflict map is the corrective: every party and their real interests, every claim each side could assert, every forum in play, every clock running, and where the leverage actually sits. It is the founding document of any serious dispute strategy — decisions made against the map compound; decisions made without it collide. The firm builds these maps for conflicts from two-party contract fights to multi-front, multi-jurisdiction entanglements.
The map is built from documents, not impressions: contracts, correspondence and public records establish who can prove what before anyone's narrative is trusted — including the client's. Interests are separated from positions, since the actor demanding money often needs something cheaper. The finished map fits on pages a decision-maker can hold, and it is versioned: as the conflict moves, the map moves, and strategy is re-derived rather than improvised.
Parties, claims, forums and clocks on one document — the difference between playing a position and playing the game.
Each option checked against the map for what it triggers, forecloses and signals, before it becomes irreversible.
The map is updated as facts move, so strategy stays derived from reality rather than from the version of it that existed in month one.
A typical engagement: a business in simultaneous friction with a partner, a supplier and a regulator commissions a conflict map. The mapping reveals that the supplier dispute is the other two parties' leverage source — and the strategy that follows resolves it first, cheaply, to disarm the rest.
Described in abbreviated, anonymised form to preserve client confidentiality.
A structured written analysis of a conflict's full landscape — parties, interests, claims, forums, deadlines and leverage. It matters because most strategic errors in disputes are errors of incomplete vision: the move was right against the piece, wrong against the board.
At the first sign of serious friction, before positions are taken in writing — early moves constrain everything after. Mapping mid-conflict is still worth it: the exercise routinely reveals options and exposures the running battle has hidden.
The documents — contracts, key correspondence, corporate records — and one honest session on history and interests. The firm builds the map from the paper, tests it against your account, and returns a working document typically within one to two weeks.