# How to Find Details Across Founder Meeting Notes in 2026 > Source: > Published: 2026-09-29 14:37:08+00:00 Details from founder meetings can be spread across several notes and follow-up documents. OGAD (Off Grid AI Desktop) can help you find where a topic was discussed and compare what was stated at different times. Choose a local model to work on your computer without uploading the notes to a cloud AI service. The useful result is a checked research record and a clearer next question. [Download OGAD](https://getoffgridai.co/desktop/) | [Desktop releases](https://github.com/off-grid-ai/OGAD/releases) **What would you like to do with Off Grid AI?** Want help with this workflow, or a feature you would like us to add? Email [support@offgridmobileai.co](mailto:support@offgridmobileai.co) with your devices and the task you want to improve. You might need the reason for a product change, the conditions behind a hiring plan, or the definition used for a customer figure. Ask for that detail rather than a general opinion about the company. Suppose a founder first described an expansion as a possibility and later discussed a planned launch. You want to know what changed and whether a dependency was resolved. A summary that combines both meetings into one confident statement can lose the sequence. This workflow helps recover statements from records. It does not establish that the statements are independently true or that the company is an appropriate investment. Collect the meeting notes you are authorised to use, plus any written clarification provided afterward. Keep the company, meeting date, and note author clear. Label the type of material. A verbatim transcript, your paraphrased notes, and a later internal interpretation have different evidential value. Do not treat a paraphrase as a direct quote. | Source type | What to keep clear | |---|---| | Transcript | Recording and review status | | Meeting notes | Who wrote them and when | | Founder follow-up | Exact statement and date | | Internal interpretation | That it is your team's view | | Supporting document | Version and reporting period | If the note is incomplete, mark that limitation. A missing answer in your notes does not prove the founder did not address it. Install OGAD and download a local text model that fits your computer. Complete the initial search setup while connected. Core Projects and document chat support the workflow without recording new meetings. Open **Projects > New project** and name it for the company. Use **Knowledge & settings > Knowledge base > Add files** to add readable PDF, DOCX, TXT, or Markdown notes. Wait for indexing, keep relevant sources enabled, and open **Chats > New chat** inside the project. If **Include captured memory** is available, turn it off for this source-only review and save. Keep unrelated companies' records in separate projects. The [Projects implementation](https://github.com/off-grid-ai/OGAD/blob/v0.0.51/src/renderer/src/components/ProjectsScreen.tsx) provides context organisation, not a guarantee of business access separation. Use a local model for the private workflow. Remote models, connected tools, and sync have their own network behavior. Start with a specific request: Find statements about the proposed expansion in these founder meeting notes. For each, show the meeting date stated in the source, the speaker if established, the relevant passage, and the conditions attached. Separate direct quotations from paraphrased notes. Do not infer that a plan was approved or completed. Check the returned passages. If the model assigns a statement to the founder when your note merely records a team discussion, correct the attribution. For long source packs, search a defined date range or a small set of meetings first. Retrieval provides selected excerpts, so broad questions can omit relevant passages. After checking the evidence, ask: Arrange these verified statements by meeting date. Show what stayed the same, what changed, and what remains unclear. Do not explain why a change happened unless the source states the reason. A later statement may reflect a new plan, a correction, or different terminology. Do not call it a contradiction until you understand the context. For the fictional expansion example, the useful record might show that the plan remained conditional on a partner agreement. If no note confirms that agreement, keep the dependency open. When a topic includes numbers, ask for the definition, period, and qualification attached to each one. Do not compare figures just because they appear in similar sentences. A customer count may refer to active organisations in one meeting and all registered accounts in another. A financial figure may be monthly, annualised, forecast, or historical. Check the original notes and supporting documents. Use a table such as: | Date | Statement | Definition or condition | Source | Question | |---|---|---|---|---| | Meeting date | Checked wording | Meaning stated in the record | Filename | What needs confirmation | Fill it from evidence, not from a desired conclusion. Verify calculations separately with the appropriate tools. A note saying “the founder expects launch in October” supports a record of that expectation. It does not prove that launch will occur in October. Ask the model to use distinct sections: Write a short research note with three sections: statements in the supplied records, supporting evidence supplied, and our unresolved questions. Do not turn an expectation into a fact or add an investment recommendation. This structure helps colleagues see which parts they can verify and which need another conversation. If you include a direct quote, compare it with the transcript or original written statement. Notes written after a meeting may support a paraphrase but not exact quotation marks. Use the checked gaps to draft a small question list: Prepare five follow-up questions from these unresolved points. Reference the relevant topic and date where helpful. Use neutral wording. Do not imply that missing evidence proves a claim is false. Choose the questions yourself before sending them. This workflow prepares text; it does not contact founders, request documents, or update a deal system automatically. Record the answers as a new dated source. Keep the old note so the change remains visible, rather than editing history to make every statement appear consistent. Local AI can help locate information, but it cannot confirm completeness of your notes, independently verify a founder's claim, or infer intent from a wording change. A polished account may still rest on incomplete evidence. When a detail matters, open the original and obtain clarification through your normal research process. Keep sensitive material within the terms under which it was provided. [Download OGAD](https://getoffgridai.co/desktop/) and start with one topic across two meetings. Recover the statements, preserve their dates and conditions, and turn the remaining gap into a clear question. That is a useful research aid you can check.