## Q6 key (Departing Product Director)
1. Trade-secret status: evaluation datasets, feature experiments, renewal forecasts, and pricing models qualify; the 400-person roadmap is weaker but arguable; public statutes and court documents do not, annotations possibly aside. Missed: overclaiming poisons the emergency application.
2. LexCore's measures are adequate overall despite sloppy offboarding; do not concede the reasonable-measures element. Missed: threshold unnecessarily lost.
3. The pre-departure copying breaches contract and confidentiality but is not unauthorized access under supplied rule 4; the 5:08 p.m. post-revocation downloads are the unauthorized-access claim. Missed: the statutory claim is aimed at the wrong conduct.
4. The secure-erase wipe after the cease-and-desist is the case's power fact: spoliation with intent indicators supporting adverse-inference leverage and credibility destruction. Missed: the best leverage goes unused.
5. Threatened misappropriation must rest on the wipe, the 5:08 downloads, the immediate product-lead role, and the technical resemblances, not on inevitable disclosure, which supplied rule 5 forbids. Missed: TRO denied on a doctrinal error.
6. Requested relief is overbroad in three places: barring Adrian from competitive work contradicts the void-noncompete rule; barring Evidentia's release fails on causation given the nine-month development record; a no-contact order covering all customers exceeds the material-contact limit. Missed: overreach costs the motion and fees.
7. Defensible emergency package: no-use and no-disclosure order, quarantine and neutral forensic examination of Adrian's devices and accounts (not full Evidentia imaging), targeted non-solicitation of material-contact customers, expedited discovery. Missed: winnable relief traded for a losing wish list.
8. Posture: seek the narrow order or a stipulated equivalent now; the solicitation claim proceeds against Adrian for the pitched customer. Missed: delay or overreach, each independently damaging.