Vetting a business partner with Hlídač státu: a risk profile before you sign

I'm preparing to vet a business partner. Here is everything I know
about them so far — help me sort it before we start verifying.

Situation: [facade subcontracting on two projects, they want an
advance for materials, signing is due within two weeks]
What I know: [company name, how they reached out, who the contact
is, what they're offering, the price is roughly 15% below the going
rate]
What they claim: [did projects for the region, have 20 people, have
been around for 10 years]
My impression: [professional communication, but pushing for a fast
signature]

Sort this into three categories: verifiable fact / counterparty claim
that can be tested against public data / my impression. For each
claim, note which registry could verify it. Finally, add the questions
I should know the answer to but don't — ask me one at a time.

Set up a structure for business-partner risk profiles for me. We
work in [git / Notion]. I want:
1. A folder/database called partners, with a first sample partner
   in it: [Omega Stav s.r.o.]
2. A profile file/page using this template: [paste the template above]
3. A README file/page with the rules: the profile is updated before
   every new contract above [threshold, e.g. "beyond a routine order"],
   versions are never deleted, only a human may change the traffic
   light and only after reading the findings
4. Fill in only the header and the Discrepancies section of Omega
   Stav's profile from this inventory: [paste the inventory output]
Don't fill in anything else — we still have to find the data, and I
don't want any guesses in the document passed off as findings.

I'm vetting a business partner. Search Hlídač státu for a legal
entity by name: [Omega Stav]. I expect it to be based in [Hradec
Králové or nearby] and operate in [construction].

If you find several entities with similar names, list all of them
with their IČO, registered seat, and business activity, and flag
which one most likely matches my description — but don't choose for
me, I'll decide. If you're not sure, say so. From the moment I
confirm the IČO, use only the IČO in every further query, never
the name.

We're working with IČO [12345678]. Put together a basic identification
profile:
1. Legal form, date of incorporation, registered seat, share capital,
   line of business
2. Statutory body: who acts on behalf of the company, and since when
3. Subsidiaries and related companies, if any
4. Summary of business with the state: does the company do business
   with public institutions? (just a summary — contract details we'll
   handle separately)

Give me the output as a filled-in Identification section for our
profile template. For each item, note which tool/source it came from.
Anything you couldn't determine, mark as NOT DETERMINED — don't fill
it in with a guess.

Still on the check for IČO [12345678]. Now the people:
1. Look up the detail of every person on the statutory body and among
   the shareholders: [name, name]
2. For each person, list every known engagement in other companies —
   current and past, with dates
3. For past engagements, find out how the company turned out: does it
   still exist, is it in liquidation, did it go through insolvency?
4. Check whether any of these people appear in politics or public
   office

Watch out for name matches: if you find several people with the same
name, list them separately and flag which ones you can't confirm are
tied to our company. Don't merge people just because the name matches.

Continuing the check on IČO [12345678]. Check insolvency records —
and for each record found, distinguish:
1. The company's role: debtor or creditor?
2. Status of proceedings: ongoing or closed? From when to when?
3. Outcome for closed cases: petition dismissed, reorganization,
   liquidation, discontinued for lack of assets?
4. The case number, so I can verify the detail myself on
   isir.justice.cz

Run the same check for the IČOs of companies from the director's
past engagements: [IČO, IČO]. Give the output as rows for the profile's
findings table, with separate rows for "insolvency — debtor" and
"insolvency — creditor." If you find nothing, write explicitly
"no record as of [date]" — not just a blank.

Next in the check on IČO [12345678]: check corporate criminal records.
If a record exists, list:
1. What the offense was and what stage the case is at — a final
   conviction, or just proceedings underway?
2. When the act took place and when the decision was made
3. What penalty the company received (fine, ban from public
   procurement, publication of the judgment...)
4. Does the matter relate to the field we're going to do business in?

Do the same for the companies from the director's past engagements:
[IČO, IČO]. State any finding neutrally, as a fact with a source —
no judgmental adjectives, I'll form my own assessment. If there's no
finding, write "no record as of [date]."

Last existential check for IČO [12345678]: is the company listed as
an unreliable VAT payer? If so, since when?

Also add the practical consequence to the profile: what does VAT
liability mean for us as the buyer, and what measures are available
[paying into the published account, a special tax-security arrangement].
Also remind me that we should verify the current status and the
published bank accounts directly in the tax authority's VAT payer
register before paying — your figure is as of the check date, not
the payment date.

Quick existential check on a business partner, IČO [12345678],
context: [new client, wants 60-day payment terms, project worth
roughly two months of capacity].

Run: insolvency (distinguish debtor/creditor, ongoing/closed),
corporate criminal records, unreliable VAT payer status.

Output: a table of check / result / date, followed by a traffic-light
rating with reasoning — red only for an ongoing insolvency as debtor,
a final conviction relevant to payment behavior, or unreliable-payer
status. Cite the source for everything. If any check fails or returns
no data, say so explicitly — a silent check failure must never look
like a clean result.

Continuing the check on IČO [12345678]: the Register of Contracts.
Search for all contracts where the company appears as the supplier,
and compile an overview:
1. Total number of contracts and sum of their value; watch out for
   pagination — go through every page of results and state how many
   records you actually processed
2. Timeline: from when to when did the contracts run, are there any
   from this year?
3. Contracting authorities: who's the biggest, what share of the
   volume do they account for
4. How many contracts have a hidden (redacted) value
5. How many contracts have amendments, and for which ones the
   amendments significantly raised the price

Specifically verify the counterparty's claim: ["we carried out
projects for the region"]. Find contracts with the region or
regional organizations — if there aren't any, note it in the
Discrepancies section of the profile.

Show me the detail of contract [ID from the previous output]:
the parties, subject matter, original value, all amendments with
dates and value changes, and a link to the register entry.

Then help me interpret it: by how many percent did the amendments
change the original value, how much time passed before they were
made, and how is the subject of the amendments described [extra work,
extension, change of scope]? Stick to the facts in the record; where
the record doesn't give a reason for an amendment, write "reason not
stated" — don't guess at it.

Check for IČO [12345678]: subsidies. Search all subsidies the company
has drawn, and summarize:
1. Total volume and count, broken down by year and program
2. The largest individual subsidies — pull the detail on the top 3:
   purpose, provider, amount
3. Ratio to the company's size, if it can be estimated from the
   available data — and if not, say so
4. Cross-check: does any subsidy relate, in timing or subject matter,
   to the criminal record from the previous check?

Write a Subsidies row into the profile with the total volume and a
note on whether the data suggests dependency on subsidy income.

Check for IČO [12345678], context from the contracts: the company's
main contracting authorities are [names/IČOs of the institutions
from the Register of Contracts output].

1. If the vetted entity is a public institution or a public company,
   get its K-index and how the grade has moved over the years
2. Get the K-index of its three largest contracting authorities
3. For each grade, explain which parameters are dragging it down —
   and remind me it's a measure of risk, not proof

For the profile: the contracting authorities' grades as context for
the Contracts with the state row. No conclusion along the lines of
"the company is tied to corrupt authorities" — just facts and grades.

Check for IČO [12345678], wider context: political party sponsorship.
1. Has the entity ever donated to a political party? When, to whom,
   how much?
2. Same question for the individuals in management and among the
   shareholders: [names] — proceed carefully with name matches and
   flag any uncertainty
3. If you find donations, lay the timeline of donations next to the
   timeline of contracts with the state from the earlier check — just
   the facts side by side, no conclusions about causation

Record the finding in the profile neutrally: who, to whom, when, how
much. Only use the phrase "donations close in time to contracts" when
the gap is under [6 months] — and even then, as an observation, not
an accusation.

Check for IČO [12345678]: UOHS decisions. Search for decisions in
which the company appears, and split them into:
1. Proceedings over prohibited agreements or abuse of dominance where
   the company is a party — for any finding, pull the detail: what it
   concerned, how it was resolved, what sanction was imposed
2. Reviews of public contracts where the company appears as the
   selected supplier — how many are there and how did they resolve?
3. For everything, distinguish: a final decision on a violation vs.
   proceedings discontinued or a request dismissed

If there's no finding, write "no record as of [date]." For a finding
under point 1, mark the profile at least yellow and note that I want
to read the detail myself.

Closing out the check on IČO [12345678]. Assemble a complete risk
profile using the template from the Project — pull in every finding
from this conversation.

Synthesis rules:
1. Enter EVERY check that was run into the findings table, including
   clean ones, always with a date and a source
2. Build the Discrepancies section from confronting the counterparty's
   claims (from the inventory) with the data — each discrepancy as a
   claim/data pair
3. Propose a traffic-light rating with reasoning, but mark it as a
   DRAFT — I'll fill in the final rating myself
4. In the Recommended contract terms section, propose 3-5 concrete
   contractual measures proportionate to the findings [advances,
   milestones, retention, payment terms, verifying the VAT payer's
   account]
5. Fill the Manual checks outside Hlídač section in as a checklist
   with links to what I still need to verify myself — don't mark any
   of it as done

Word the verdict soberly: biggest risk, biggest reassurance,
recommendation. No dramatization, no "guaranteed."

Here's the finished risk profile [paste it]. Play two roles, one
after the other:

1. The counterparty's lawyer: go through the profile and find every
   spot where we're drawing a strong conclusion from weak data, where
   interpretation is getting ahead of the facts, or where the company
   could reasonably object. For each spot, suggest more cautious
   wording.

2. The skeptical business partner: conversely, find spots where we
   were too lenient — a risk mentioned in the data that didn't make
   it into the verdict, a combination of signals we didn't evaluate
   together, a missing check.

Output: two lists with specific quotes from the profile. Don't edit
the document yourself — I'll approve changes one at a time.

Vetting a new client before signing: IČO [12345678] from the draft
contract. I'm a freelancer, the project takes two months of capacity,
the client wants 60-day payment terms.

1. Confirm the IČO matches the company [name from the email] — if
   not, stop
2. Existential triage: insolvency (debtor vs. creditor!), criminal
   records, unreliable VAT payer
3. Contracts with the state as an indirect reference: does the
   company supply public institutions repeatedly and over a long
   period?
4. Output: a half-page profile — a table of checks with dates, a
   draft traffic light, and negotiation advice: what advance and what
   payment milestones make sense given this finding

Remember: insolvency records in the creditor role are information
about the client's customers, not about the client itself.

From the risk profile [paste it], prepare a checklist of manual checks
outside Hlídač státu, ranked by benefit-to-effort ratio for my
situation [subcontract with an advance for materials]:
1. For each item: exactly where to verify it (which registry's name),
   what to look for there, and what finding would change the
   traffic light
2. Mark what's free and what's paid
3. Specifically for the collection of documents: which years'
   statements should exist, and what to read in them as a
   layperson [equity, liabilities vs. revenue]
4. Add wording for an email to the counterparty requesting a
   certificate of no outstanding debt, explaining it's standard
   procedure — I'll send the email myself

Add the checklist to the profile's Manual checks section; I'll tick
items off as I go.

Ahead of the next contract, update this partner's risk profile
[paste the current profile / a link to the Notion page]. Take the
IČO from the profile.

1. Repeat every check from the findings table as of today
2. Create a "Changes since the last version [date]" section: what's
   new, what's gone, what changed — and write "no change" explicitly
   if nothing changed
3. If the changes shift the risk picture, propose an updated traffic
   light with reasoning — the final call is mine
4. Add an entry to Version history: v[N], date, a one-sentence
   summary
5. Show me the finished document for approval before saving it

Context for the new contract: [second stage, higher volume this
time, the partner is proposing a larger advance]. Reflect it in the
Recommended contract terms.

Quarterly portfolio re-check. Here's the table of partners with IČOs
and traffic lights [paste / link to portfolio.md].

For each IČO, run a shortened check: insolvency (debtor role only),
criminal records, unreliable VAT payer status, and for partners
marked as [dependent on public contracts] also significant changes
in the Register of Contracts over the last quarter.

Output:
1. A summary table: partner / check / change since last time —
   partners with no changes get a single "no change" row
2. Only break out in detail the partners where something changed
3. For each change: a recommendation on whether to open a full
   profile update
4. At the end, state how many IČOs you actually checked — it must
   match the number of rows in the table

Don't write anything into the profiles yet — we'll transfer changes
into them one at a time, with my approval.

Go through this risk profile [paste it] purely from a wording
standpoint:
1. Find every statement that's an interpretation but is written as
   a fact — rewrite it so it's clear what the registry says and what
   we think it might mean ["the registry shows X" vs. "this could
   mean Y"]
2. Find every judgmental word [suspicious, tied to, risky] and
   replace it with a description of what's actually in the data
3. Check that every finding has a source and a date
4. Check that the profile never comments on anyone's private life
   outside their business roles

Return a list of changes for me to approve, not a rewritten document.

Monthly radar: search VeKLEP for legislation in preparation on the
topics [construction, public procurement, subcontractors, VAT in
construction]. For each relevant proposal: what stage it's at, what
it changes compared to today, and who it affects. Skip proposals that
don't concern our business, and write "nothing new" if there's nothing
new. Output: five bullet points at most, no legal analysis — I'll ask
for that separately if I need it.