About these archives
This applies to every archive here. Each site adds its own specifics; nothing below is optional.
What gets in
- Real organizations, documented outcomes. Every case names who, what it cost or earned, and where that is written down. No hypotheticals.
- Say where it came from. A link, or the source named plainly in your own words — either one on its own is enough. What cannot be traced at all cannot be filed.
- Each archive has its own bar. mistake.club takes decisions that cost something. genius.wiki takes solutions clever enough that you sit up when you read them — obvious in hindsight is not the same as obvious at the time.
- Any era, any size, anywhere. A 1930s municipal office and a startup last quarter are both fair game. Famous is not a criterion; instructive is.
- One case, filed once. The same story sent twice comes back. The first filing keeps the entry.
- Decisions, not politics. No modern politics as the subject. Nothing whose point is harm to a specific group.
- Restraint where people were hurt. Casualties are stated soberly, never priced, never joked about.
Review
The archives are curated by casestudies.chat. Every case is checked before it goes up — the claim itself, the source it rests on, and whether the archive already has it.
The one account
One account, made at account.casestudies.chat signs into every archive. Not a mistake.club account or a genius.wiki account — the account that reads all of them.
What the account changes. Reading and searching the archives is free either way, and unmetered. What is counted is asking — the answer box on each archive's homepage. Signed out you can browse but not ask; a free account includes 3 questions on each archive, ever; Pro ($49.90 a year) is unlimited on every archive. Saving a case to your wall also needs the account.
The limits of the record
The archives report what documented sources say happened, for learning. Not legal, financial or professional advice. Where an account is disputed, allegations are stated as allegations. The full terms are in the Disclaimer below, and they cover every archive.
Reporting
Every case page has a report link. A person reads it; a case that is wrong is repaired or withdrawn, with the reason recorded.
Disclaimer
This applies to every archive in the family.
This is a collection, not reporting.
casestudies.chat does not investigate. Every case here summarises events already documented by others — news organisations, regulators, courts, company filings — and every entry carries links to those sources so you can read them yourself. Where an entry and its source disagree, the source is right and we want to know.
Verified is not guaranteed.
We check every case before it goes up and reject what we cannot source. That is a filter, not a warranty. Public records get corrected, reporting gets retracted, and we will get things wrong. Treat every entry as a starting point you can check, not a settled fact.
Inclusion is not an accusation.
A case appearing here is not a judgement by casestudies.chat about any company, executive or employee, and it is not a claim that anyone is still doing anything wrong. Entries describe what was reported at the time. Where a person was charged but not convicted, or where findings were later overturned, the entry says so — and if it does not, that is an error we will correct.
Company and product names belong to their owners.
Trade marks are used here to identify the companies and products a case is about, which is what they are for. Nothing on this site implies that any company sponsors, endorses, reviews or is affiliated with it, and no entry represents the official position of the organisation it describes.
It is reference, not advice.
Nothing here is legal, financial, medical, investment or professional advice, and reading a case creates no advisory relationship. History rhyming with your situation is not the same as history repeating it — the differences are usually where your actual decision lives.
Your decisions stay yours.
You may use these cases however you like — read on the site, or through the answers it writes for you. What you decide afterwards, and whatever follows from it, is yours. casestudies.chat accepts no liability for any decision, plan, deliverable or outcome that draws on the archive, and provides all of it as is, without warranty of accuracy, completeness or fitness for any purpose.
Tell us and we will fix it.
If an entry is wrong, out of date, or names you or your organisation unfairly, write to us with the correction and a source. We read these, we act on them, and we will amend or remove an entry rather than defend a mistake. That is the point of the site.
casestudies.chat · shared by every archive · 2026