# THE STARK FILES — Run Guide
### A 15-minute "mini due-diligence" exercise + a NotebookLM detective game, built on the real STARK Corporation fraud.

You have two ways to use this package. They share the same source files.
- **Track A — NotebookLM:** a self-playing detective game, plus an AI podcast and an auto-quiz. Great for self-paced learning, pre-reading, or a fun cohort warm-up.
- **Track B — Live 15-min exercise (Claude or NotebookLM):** a facilitated "spot-the-fraud" mini-DD for a workshop.

---

## 📦 What's in this folder
| File | What it is | Use |
|---|---|---|
| `01_EVIDENCE_Financials_Digest.md` | The XLSX digested to clean bilingual text with 9 pre-annotated red flags | **NotebookLM source** |
| `02_EVIDENCE_Auditor_Report_Digest.md` | Plain-English digest of PwC's disclaimer — **this is the answer** | 🔒 **Answer key — hold out of the game** |
| `03_CASE_Dossier_Public_Record.md` | People, timeline, aftermath, from public reporting (cited) | **NotebookLM source** |
| `04_EXHIBIT_Claimed_vs_Actual.md` | FY2021 side-by-side: what management/Deloitte filed vs what PwC restated | **NotebookLM source** ⭐ |
| `THE_STARK_FILES_Game_Prompt.md` | The two-mode game prompt (English) to paste into NotebookLM | Paste into chat config |
| `THE_STARK_FILES_Sherlock_TH.md` | The same game in Thai, narrated by a **เชอร์ล็อก โฮล์มส์** persona | Paste into chat config (Thai) |
| `STARK_Fraud_Dashboard.html` | Interactive "Run the restatement" infographic — claimed-vs-actual reveal, the round-trip diagram, red-flag grid | Open in a browser · workshop reveal / slides |
| `README_Run_The_STARK_Files.md` | This guide | Read me |

*Optional extra sources:* you can also upload the original Thai filings — from `2565/` (FY2022: `FINANCIAL_STATEMENTS.XLSX`, `AUDITOR_REPORT.DOCX`, `NOTES.DOCX`) and `2564/` (FY2021: the statements, the Deloitte clean opinion, and `STARKT1.PDF` = the **56-1 One Report 2564**). The digests above are cleaner inputs, but the **56-1 PDF** is worth adding — it's management's own growth story, in their words.

---

## 🗂️ Source map (important for the game)
Your sources do two different jobs — keep them separate:

- **The playing field** (load these into the player's notebook): `01` (financials + red flags), `03` (dossier), `04` (claimed-vs-actual), and optionally the raw `2564/STARKT1.PDF` (56-1). This is exactly what a DD analyst held *before* the collapse.
- **The answer key** (do **not** load into the player's notebook): `02` (the auditor's confession). NotebookLM will summarise any source on request, so loading `02` lets a player just *read the ending*. The narrator already carries the full solution inside the game prompt, so the case stays fair and accurate without it. Add `02` only at the **reveal/debrief**, or keep it as your facilitator answer key.

*(For the non-game uses — the podcast and quiz — feel free to use a separate notebook with everything, including `02`.)*

## 🎮 Track A — Set up the NotebookLM game (5 minutes)
1. Go to **notebooklm.google.com → Create new notebook.**
2. **Add sources — the playing field only** → upload **`01`, `03`, `04`** (and optionally the **56-1 PDF** from `2564/`). **Do NOT upload `02`** — that's the answer key (see the Source map below). Markdown is supported; drag-drop works.
3. Open the chat, click **"Configure notebook"** (chat customization at the top), and **paste the entire boxed prompt** from `THE_STARK_FILES_Game_Prompt.md` (English) **or** `THE_STARK_FILES_Sherlock_TH.md` (Thai, Sherlock-narrated). Save.
4. In the chat, type **`#GAME`**. Pick a clearance level (🟢/🟡/🔴) and an opening (A/B). Investigate.
5. Type **`#DEFAULT`** anytime to turn it back into a normal Q&A study assistant over the same sources.

> The game is *fair*: every clue lives in the sources, so the narrator grounds itself instead of hallucinating. The intended "aha": the income statement says *growth*, but EXAMINE-ing the **cash flow** and TRACE-ing the cash to **Asia Pacific Drilling Engineering** is what cracks it — exactly how a real analyst would have caught STARK.

### 🎙️ Make the podcast (NotebookLM Audio Overview)
Click **Audio Overview → Customize**, then paste a steer like:
> "Two financial-journalist hosts unpack the STARK Corporation fraud for smart non-accountants. Walk through the red flags in order: 33% 'revenue growth' but deeply negative operating cash flow; receivables and inventory ballooning; ฿10.4bn of advance payments (65% of annual metal buys) rerouted to a shareholder-related company; the round-tripped cash; the auditor switch and disclaimer of opinion. End on the one lesson: the cash flow statement is harder to fake than the income statement. Punchy, ~10 minutes, a little dramatic."

### ❓ Make a quiz (in DEFAULT mode)
Paste:
> "Create a 10-question quiz (mix of multiple-choice and short-answer) that tests whether I can spot the STARK red flags from the financial statements alone. Cover: cash flow vs. revenue, DSO/receivables, inventory anomalies, the round-trip via the related party, negative equity, and the auditor switch. Put an answer key with source citations at the end."

---

## 🕵️ Track B — The live 15-minute mini-DD exercise
Run this with Claude (cowork) **or** with the NotebookLM notebook in #DEFAULT mode. Best for a workshop: participants get **only Evidence File #1 (the financials)** at first — withhold #2 until the reveal.

**Run of show (15 min):**
| Time | Segment | What happens |
|---|---|---|
| 0–2 min | **Set the scene** | "This is a real SET-listed 'growth' company, audited, with marquee bond investors. You're the DD analyst. Something is wrong. You have 10 minutes." Hand out / load Evidence File #1 only. |
| 2–9 min | **Hunt (the work)** | Participants ask Claude/NotebookLM to find anomalies. Seed prompts below. Goal: each person/table finds ≥3 red flags and forms a theory of the fraud. |
| 9–12 min | **Trace the money** | Push them to the key move: "Where did the 'customer payments' and the 'supplier advances' actually go?" → the round-trip via Asia Pacific Drilling Engineering. |
| 12–15 min | **The reveal + debrief** | Drop Evidence File #2 (auditor's report) and the Dossier. Confirm who was right. Debrief the lesson. |

**Seed prompts for participants (copy/paste):**
- "Using only the financial digest, list every line item that doesn't make business sense for a profitable cable maker. Rank by how damning each is."
- "Reconcile reported revenue growth against operating cash flow. What story does each tell, and why do they disagree?"
- "Compute receivable days and inventory days. Are they consistent with a healthy manufacturer? What would explain the gap?"
- "I'm the analyst. Ask me 5 Socratic questions that would lead me to the fraud mechanism without telling me the answer."
- "Draft a one-paragraph 'red flag memo' to an investment committee recommending we walk away, citing specific figures."

**The answer (for the facilitator):** fictitious revenue at Phelps Dodge / Thai Cable / Adisorn (sales booked with no goods delivered), with cash **round-tripped through Asia Pacific Drilling Engineering** so fake invoices looked "paid" — manufacturing fake growth to raise **฿5.58bn equity + ~฿9.2bn bonds** the real business never earned. The cash flow statement is the giveaway. Full detail in Evidence File #2.

**🔥 Pro variant — "Catch it before the auditors did."** Hand out only the **56-1 One Report 2564** (or Exhibit #4's *Claimed* column) — the version with **Deloitte's clean opinion**. Challenge: *"This passed audit. Find the lie anyway."* Strong analysts will land on it from the original filing alone — receivables at **~225 days of sales** and a **+฿2,795M 'profit' sitting on negative ฿1,226M operating cash**. Then reveal Exhibit #4: the same year was later restated to a **(฿5,989M) loss** and **negative equity**. The lesson lands hard — *the red flags were in the audited, clean-opinion statements a full year before the collapse.*

---

## 🤖 The AI angle — what this really demonstrates (the 3-minute "wow")
This exercise isn't only about STARK; it's a live demo of **human + AI coworking**. The human brings the *judgment* ("something's off — find it"); the AI does in minutes what took regulators months: read 350+ pages of Thai filings, reconcile statements, compute ratios, trace the cash, and draft the memo. Run this cold in **Claude cowork** (point it at the raw `2564/` and `2565/` folders — the messy originals, not my digests) to show the room how fast it goes:

1. *"Read these Thai financial statements and the 56-1. In plain English, what business is this and how healthy does management claim it is?"* → AI ingests hundreds of Thai pages instantly.
2. *"Now reconcile the reported profit against operating cash flow for each year. Flag anything that doesn't add up."* → AI surfaces the negative-cash-vs-profit contradiction on its own.
3. *"Compare the FY2021 numbers as originally filed (2564) vs as restated (2565). Quantify exactly what changed and what that implies."* → AI rebuilds the Claimed-vs-Actual table live (+฿2,795M profit → −฿5,989M loss).
4. *"Trace the cash behind the 'advance payments' and 'customer collections.' Who is the counterparty?"* → AI lands on Asia Pacific Drilling Engineering and the round-trip.
5. *"Write the one-paragraph 'walk away' memo to our investment committee."* → AI produces a citable DD memo.

**The meta-point to say out loud:** *this entire kit — the digests, the dossier, the game, the Thai Sherlock narrator — was itself produced by a human and an AI coworking from those same raw filings.* That's the capability on display.

## 🧠 Why this case is a great teaching tool
STARK passed every *surface* check — audited statements, a ฿5.58bn placement to brand-name institutions, listed bonds, a marquee European acquisition — yet was insolvent and fictitious underneath. It's Thailand's Enron-scale lesson that **diligence means reconciling the income statement against cash and the balance sheet, not trusting the headline.** Every red flag was visible before the collapse to anyone who read past "profit."

*Sources for the public record are cited inside `03_CASE_Dossier_Public_Record.md`. Figures are digested from the filed FY2022 statements (which include restated FY2021 comparatives).*
