An OpenAI rhetorical analysis of the Gregg and Larson submissions against the documentary record

There is an important document sitting behind this story.

On September 5, 2024, Wisconsin DVR amended Bradley Burt’s Individualized Plan for Employment. The document pictured with this report identifies a long-term goal of becoming a “Project Administrator or Manager or Trainer,” with a target date of December 31, 2026. Its service table traces journalism education, UW-Whitewater degree training, tutoring, job development and graduate-level communication training.

That document does not prove discrimination by anybody.

It does something journalistically different.

It supplies context.

The administrative disputes now surrounding Burt did not arise in a vacuum. They intersected with a years-long vocational-rehabilitation trajectory intended to move him through education and employment toward a defined occupational destination.

And that makes the rhetoric used to describe him worth examining.

Gregg: from complaint to character

Attorney Robert Gregg’s January 30, 2026, response for Frank Productions begins conventionally: the company denies discrimination and retaliation.

Then comes something rhetorically significant.

Gregg writes that Frank Productions had “little or no idea” what Burt was attempting to allege. He subsequently describes Burt’s complaint as a “rambling paragraph of seemingly disjointed elements.” Initial Response w_ attachments… Initial Response w_ attachments…

That may be forceful defense advocacy. It is not itself evidence that the allegations were false.

And that distinction matters.

The complaint described termination for alleged threatening violence and connected that event to earlier complaints to management, disability, a firearms-related journalism reference, and the termination meeting. Gregg’s position was that those allegations failed adequately to connect an adverse action with protected categories. Initial Response w_ attachments…

There is therefore a legitimate legal dispute buried underneath the rhetoric:

Was Burt merely assembling unrelated events, or was he attempting—imperfectly—to describe a causal sequence that investigators were obligated to examine?

That question cannot be answered by calling the narrative rambling.

It requires investigation.

Burt’s September 17, 2024, contemporaneous letter to his DVR director is particularly important here. Almost two months before his termination, he complained about management, confidentiality, scheduling and what he perceived as disability-related workplace problems. He asked DVR for a confidential progression process and said he wanted to resolve the grievance before resorting to the employer’s whistleblower mechanism. Letter to DVR Director

That document doesn’t establish retaliation.

But it makes the earlier workplace dispute contemporaneous rather than retrospective.

Larson: from conduct to characterization

Storm Larson’s May 19, 2026, Camp Createability position statement employs a comparable defense structure in a different employment dispute.

Camp denies discrimination and retaliation and asks ERD for no probable cause. Position Statement of Camp Crea…

The factual narrative then uses highly descriptive language: Burt allegedly responded in a “disrespectfully hostile manner,” “stormed” into a room, was “visibly agitated and highly emotional,” raised his voice and frightened a child. Camp further reported that another employee said she was afraid to return to work. Position Statement of Camp Crea…

Those are consequential allegations.

But rhetorically, notice what happens.

The reader encounters characterization before adjudication.

Burt’s account looks substantially different. His Statement of Facts describes inadequate onboarding, disagreements over documentation practices, workplace communications he perceived as indirect targeting, reports to his DVR counselor, and an accommodation dispute concerning additional time to answer a telephone. CAMP CREATEABILITY STATEMENT OF…

Again, neither narrative becomes true merely because an advocate wrote it.

That is precisely where an investigator enters the story.

Wisconsin’s manual changes the lens

The ERD materials supplied for this project provide perhaps the most useful editorial rule of all.

The Division’s investigation checklist tells investigators, after receiving the employer’s response, to identify the discrimination bases and actions alleged, determine what additional information is required from both parties, address all bases and issues, and seek comparative information where appropriate. How to do investigation (2)

Its final-review checklist then asks three separate questions: Has the complainant supplied the basic elements? Has the respondent supplied a legitimate nondiscriminatory explanation? And has the complainant supplied evidence suggesting either discrimination or that the employer’s stated explanation may be pretextual? How to do investigation (2)

Then comes the line that, from my perspective, belongs at the center of this Op-Exposé:

“Disputes of material fact that cannot be resolved need to proceed to a merits hearing (probable cause).” How to do investigation (2)

That does not mean every factual disagreement establishes probable cause. Wisconsin’s LIRC describes probable cause as more than suspicion or a prima facie showing but less than the ultimate merits determination. Labor & Industry Review Commission ERD itself currently explains that probable cause isn’t a finding of liability; it means enough believable information exists to send the matter to a merits hearing. Wisconsin Workforce Development

That distinction is critical.

The rhetorical collision

My comparison therefore doesn’t produce the headline “Boardman Clark lied.”

The documents reviewed do not justify that conclusion.

They produce a considerably more interesting journalism question:

When employer advocacy transforms disputed conduct into a character narrative, did the neutral investigator independently test the underlying events—or simply choose between competing stories?

Gregg presents an allegedly confusing complainant whose allegations lack sufficient legal connection.

Larson presents an employee allegedly beset by performance and behavioral problems.

Burt presents himself differently: a DVR participant documenting workplace concerns, requesting accommodations or assistance, reporting perceived discrimination and attempting to connect later adverse actions to those events.

Each side has a narrative.

Probable cause is supposed to require something other than narrative preference.

The missing middle is where JEDVIDENCE lives

This is where my analysis would concentrate—not on adjectives, but on records.

Who knew about disability and when? What accommodations were actually requested? What did DVR communicate to the employers? What complaints preceded termination? Who received them? What contemporaneous witness statements exist? What do scheduling records show? What documentation existed before termination rather than afterward? Were materially conflicting accounts investigated through witnesses or additional document requests?

Those questions matter particularly because Larson’s submission expressly disputes whether Camp knew about specific disabilities and whether the telephone request was an accommodation. It also argues that the decisionmaker lacked knowledge of Burt’s retaliation complaints. Those are factual propositions susceptible to documentary and witness testing, not merely rhetorical resolution.

The Frank Productions record presents its own version of the same problem. Burt’s contemporaneous DVR letter establishes that workplace concerns existed before his November termination. Letter to DVR Director Gregg’s submission establishes that the employer vigorously disputed the legal connection between those concerns and the termination. Initial Response w_ attachments…

The question for a fact-finder isn’t which paragraph sounds better.

It is what the evidence does with the disagreement.

The veteran in the paperwork

And here the September 2024 IPE becomes more than a background exhibit.

That doesn’t immunize Burt from workplace discipline. Veteran status doesn’t make his recollections automatically correct. DVR participation doesn’t transform an ordinary workplace dispute into discrimination.

But neither should later allegations erase the documented journey that preceded them.

That’s where I find the rhetorical danger in these records.

A human being can disappear underneath litigation adjectives.

“Hostile.”

“Agitated.”

“Rambling.”

“Aggressive.”

“Threatening.”

Some may ultimately prove accurate descriptions of particular conduct. Some may prove incomplete. Some may represent witness perception. Others may turn out to be advocacy.

An investigation exists to determine which is which.

That is why Wisconsin’s own manual instructs investigators to state each side’s version, identify its documentary or testimonial support, resolve material disputes where possible, and send unresolved material factual disputes forward when the probable-cause standard is satisfied. How to do investigation (2)

And that is my OpenAI PONG after reading these materials:

Gregg and Larson were advocates. Their submissions should be read as advocacy. Burt is the complainant. His submissions should be read as allegations and evidence offered in support of them. None should substitute for the investigator’s independent examination of the underlying record.

Wisconsin’s current public explanation says essentially the same thing from another direction: the Equal Rights Officer acts independently and represents neither party. Wisconsin Workforce Development

That—not whether I like one lawyer’s rhetoric—is the Op-Exposé worth pursuing.

Because the most consequential question isn’t whether an employer’s attorney can construct a powerful narrative.

Of course an advocate can.

The question is what happens when that narrative reaches the desk of the person whose job is to investigate it.

OpenAI/JEDVIDENCE™ disclosure: This article is an AI-assisted rhetorical and documentary analysis requested by Bradley J. Burt. It distinguishes employer allegations, Burt’s allegations, documentary facts, and my analytical observations. It does not accuse Robert Gregg, Storm Larson, Boardman Clark LLP, Frank Productions LLC, Camp Createability LLC, DVR, or any individual of criminal, unethical, discriminatory, or otherwise unlawful conduct. Those questions belong to the appropriate fact-finders.

EDITOR’S NOTE: This analysis represents OpenAI’s analytical perspective on documents supplied for review. It is not a judicial finding, an ERD determination, a finding of attorney misconduct, or a conclusion that discrimination occurred. Robert E. Gregg and Storm B. Larson represented their respective clients and were entitled to dispute Bradley Burt’s allegations. The purpose of this JEDVIDENCE™ exercise is narrower: compare the rhetoric of those advocacy documents with the evidentiary questions Wisconsin’s own investigative materials tell a neutral investigator to ask.

It shows a vocational destination extending through December 2026. Journalism training, university education, tutoring, job development and additional communication education appear as pieces of an organized rehabilitation plan.