Choosing “corporate governance” as your LLM dissertation subject can feel like progress—until your reading leads to five different projects. Independent directors, promoter control, executive pay and shareholder remedies each raise questions that need their own boundaries. The challenge is deciding which legal disagreement you can investigate with the sources and time available. This guide brings together 25 dissertation topics for LLM corporate law, organised around specific questions rather than broad subject labels. Each idea includes a legal tension, possible sources and a suggested limit. Use the list to shortlist a direction, test the evidence and develop a proposal with your supervisor. Your final title should reflect the argument you intend to investigate.
Quick answer: A suitable corporate law dissertation topic examines a specific legal problem through legislation, judgments or accessible corporate documents. It should allow competing interpretations, define a manageable jurisdiction and company context, and support critical analysis. Choose a question you can investigate within your university’s word limit and submission schedule.
Contents
- Start with a legal disagreement.
- 25 corporate law dissertation topics
- Compare topics before shortlisting.
- Turn a general subject into a defensible topic.
- Choose a research method and check sources.
- Five checks before topic approval
- Test your topic with a small source exercise.
- Build a one-page proposal.
- Common topic-selection problems
- Frequently asked questions
Start With a Legal Disagreement
“Company law” names a field. “Corporate governance” identifies an interest. A dissertation needs a problem within that interest.
Consider four useful starting points:
- A gap between a rule and its practical use: A disclosure requirement may exist, but does the information help shareholders scrutinise a decision?
- Competing stakeholder rights: A restructuring decision may support business continuity while raising questions about employee claims or creditor treatment.
- Uncertainty in interpretation: A director’s duty may be clear in general terms but difficult to apply to a particular conflict.
- A business practice that tests existing principles: Companies using AI-generated recommendations raise questions about oversight, delegation and accountability.
The question should leave room for different findings. “Why independent directors have failed” begins with a conclusion. “How should independent-director oversight be assessed in promoter-controlled companies?” creates space to examine evidence and competing arguments.
25 Dissertation Topics for LLM Corporate Law
These ideas primarily use Indian law. The Companies Act, 2013 provides a starting point for company-law research. Listed-company topics also require the applicable SEBI framework, while insolvency and merger-control questions require their own legislation, regulations and decisions.
Treat the sources below as a starting point for investigation. Record the relevant legislation, amendments, commencement notifications, rules and regulations. When analysing an older judgment or corporate filing, identify the law that applied at that time before comparing it with the current position.
Distinguish enacted provisions, provisions brought into force, consultation proposals and academic recommendations. This matters particularly for insolvency topics following the 2026 IBC amendment and for listed-company topics affected by amendments to SEBI’s LODR framework. ibbi.gov.in
Corporate Governance and Board Accountability
1. Independent Directors and Promoter Influence in Listed Companies
Research question: How effectively do independence requirements address promoter influence over board oversight?
Legal tension: Formal eligibility for independence versus practical freedom to question controlling shareholders.
Potential sources: Companies Act provisions on independent directors, Schedule IV, SEBI LODR Regulations, appointment disclosures and annual reports.
Suggested boundary: Indian listed companies in one industry, focusing on appointment and reappointment rather than every board function.
2. Board Oversight of Cybersecurity Risk
Research question: How should directors’ duties apply when a company delegates cybersecurity operations to specialists?
Legal tension: Reasonable reliance on technical advice versus responsibility for oversight.
Potential sources: Directors’ duties, applicable reporting and disclosure requirements, publicly reported incidents and corporate risk-management statements.
Suggested boundary: Listed non-financial companies. Exclude technical security testing and individual criminal liability.
3. Directors’ Conflicts of Interest in Corporate Opportunity Decisions
Research question: How should company law distinguish a director’s personal business opportunity from an opportunity belonging to the company?
Legal tension: Commercial freedom versus loyalty to the company.
Potential sources: Companies Act provisions on directors’ duties and disclosure of interests, relevant judgments and published transaction records.
Suggested boundary: Opportunities connected to the company’s existing business. Exclude general employee disputes.
4. Executive Remuneration and Accountability for Poor Performance
Research question: Do remuneration approval and disclosure mechanisms allow meaningful scrutiny of executive pay?
Legal tension: Board discretion in rewarding management versus shareholder oversight.
Potential sources: Companies Act remuneration provisions, SEBI LODR requirements, remuneration policies and shareholder voting results.
Suggested boundary: One listed-company sector over three completed reporting years. Evaluate legal safeguards without assuming that pay alone explains company performance.
5. Material Event Disclosures and Commercial Confidentiality
Research question: How should listed companies balance timely market disclosure with confidentiality during acquisition negotiations?
Legal tension: Investor access to material information versus protection of legitimate commercial interests.
Potential sources: SEBI LODR Regulation 30, applicable circulars, enforcement orders and stock-exchange announcements.
Suggested boundary: The timing of acquisition-related disclosures. Exclude unrelated categories of material events.
Shareholder Rights and Corporate Control
6. Oppression Remedies for Minority Shareholders in Private Companies
Research question: How do adjudicators distinguish oppressive conduct from ordinary disagreement over business management?
Legal tension: Protection against unfair treatment versus respect for majority decision-making.
Potential sources: Companies Act Sections 241–244, tribunal decisions and appellate judgments.
Suggested boundary: Exclusion from management in closely held companies. Avoid combining every form of minority-shareholder grievance.
7. Shareholders’ Agreements and Company Articles
Research question: What affects the enforceability of contractual governance rights when they are absent from, or inconsistent with, company articles?
Legal tension: Private contractual arrangements versus the company’s statutory governance framework.
Potential sources: Companies Act, Indian Contract Act, relevant judgments and publicly available agreements or articles.
Suggested boundary: Board nomination and reserved-matter rights in Indian private companies.
8. Differential Voting Rights and Minority Investor Protection
Research question: What safeguards should accompany unequal voting rights to protect investors while allowing founder control?
Legal tension: Stable entrepreneurial control versus proportionate shareholder influence.
Potential sources: Companies Act, applicable share-capital rules, SEBI frameworks, offer documents and voting disclosures.
Suggested boundary: One legally defined category of differential voting arrangement. Establish its eligibility conditions before evaluating its safeguards.
9. Related-Party Transaction Approval in Promoter-Controlled Companies
Research question: How effectively do approval and disclosure mechanisms address conflicts in transactions involving promoter-linked entities?
Legal tension: Legitimate transactions within business groups versus the risk of value diversion.
Potential sources: Companies Act Section 188, applicable SEBI LODR provisions, audit-committee disclosures and voting results.
Suggested boundary: One transaction category, such as purchases or services, within a small sample of listed companies. Apply the relevant framework for each reporting period.
10. Exit Rights in Closely Held Companies
Research question: How do contractual exit rights interact with remedies available when relationships between shareholders break down?
Legal tension: Freedom to agree an exit mechanism versus legal limits affecting implementation and valuation.
Potential sources: Share-transfer provisions, contract law, company articles and judgments concerning exit disputes.
Suggested boundary: Domestic shareholder arrangements. Include cross-border investment rules only where they are essential to the question.
Insolvency and Business Restructuring
11. Operational Creditors and Fair Treatment in Resolution Plans
Research question: How should the adequacy of operational-creditor protection be evaluated within corporate insolvency resolution?
Legal tension: Resolution flexibility and creditor priorities versus protection for suppliers and service providers.
Potential sources: IBC, applicable CIRP Regulations, resolution-plan judgments and publicly available orders.
Suggested boundary: Plan approval and distribution. Exclude disputes about admitting an insolvency application.
12. Commercial Wisdom and Judicial Review of Resolution Decisions
Research question: Where should the boundary lie between creditor decision-making and judicial scrutiny of resolution plans?
Legal tension: Commercial expertise versus compliance with statutory safeguards.
Potential sources: IBC provisions on committee decisions and plan approval, Supreme Court judgments and appellate decisions.
Suggested boundary: Judicial review of approved plans. Distinguish decisions under earlier statutory wording from those applying subsequent amendments.
13. Going-Concern Sales and Business Continuity in Liquidation
Research question: What legal safeguards support going-concern sales while protecting affected creditors?
Legal tension: Preserving business value versus clarity about transferred assets, liabilities and claims.
Potential sources: IBC, applicable Liquidation Process Regulations, sale notices and adjudicatory orders.
Suggested boundary: One form of going-concern sale under the framework applicable to the selected period.
14. Coordination of Group Insolvency and Protection of Separate Creditors
Research question: How should coordination between insolvency proceedings involving connected companies protect the creditors of each company?
Legal tension: Coordinating a commercially connected business group while preserving company-specific claims, assets and procedural rights.
Potential sources: IBC and its amendments, commencement notifications, applicable implementing rules or regulations, adjudicatory decisions and official explanatory materials.
Suggested boundary: One coordination issue in domestic corporate groups, such as information sharing, procedural participation or allocation of costs. Establish which provisions are operative for the period studied.
15. Employee Claims During Corporate Insolvency Resolution
Research question: How are selected employee claims treated when a resolution plan seeks to preserve the business?
Legal tension: Business rescue versus protection of accrued employment entitlements.
Potential sources: IBC, relevant employment and provident-fund legislation, and plan-approval judgments.
Suggested boundary: One claim category, such as unpaid wages or provident-fund-related claims. Define the affected workers and avoid treating different entitlements as legally identical.
Mergers, Acquisitions and Competition
Topics 16 and 19 examine different stages of merger control: whether a transaction falls within notification requirements, and how its possible competitive effects should be assessed.
16. Deal-Value Thresholds: When Does a Digital Acquisition Require Notification?
Research question: How should deal-value-based notification requirements apply to digital acquisitions where turnover provides a limited picture of commercial significance?
Legal tension: Capturing relevant transactions versus maintaining predictable notification requirements.
Potential sources: Competition Act, applicable combination rules and regulations, CCI guidance and published orders.
Suggested boundary: One digital market, focusing on jurisdictional screening and the assessment of substantial business operations in India.
CCI’s published materials explain the deal-value framework through transaction value and substantial business operations in India. Keep those notification questions separate from an assessment of competitive harm.
17. Competing Open Offers and Information Available to Public Shareholders
Research question: How effectively does the takeover framework help public shareholders compare competing open offers?
Legal tension: Giving shareholders a meaningful choice while allowing competing bidders to pursue a transaction within regulated procedures.
Potential sources: Applicable SEBI Takeover Regulations, public announcements, detailed public statements, letters of offer and relevant regulatory decisions.
Suggested boundary: Offer price, conditions and timing. Test access to examples before committing to a case-study approach.
18. Takeover Defences and Shareholder Choice
Research question: How should restrictions on defensive board action balance managerial judgment and shareholder choice?
Legal tension: Protecting the target company versus allowing shareholders to assess an offer.
Potential sources: SEBI Takeover Regulations, relevant company-law provisions, offer documents and regulatory orders.
Suggested boundary: Board action during an open-offer period. Establish the Indian legal position before discussing defensive mechanisms used abroad.
19. Potential Competition: How Should an Emerging Digital Rival Be Assessed?
Research question: What evidence should merger assessment consider when a target’s future competitive significance is uncertain?
Legal tension: Preventing the loss of future competition versus speculation about business growth.
Potential sources: Competition Act, CCI orders, market studies and public transaction documents.
Suggested boundary: One category of digital service. Evaluate the evidence used to assess potential competition without assuming that every startup acquisition harms competition.
20. Minority Shareholder Protection in Merger Valuation
Research question: How effectively can minority shareholders challenge valuation assumptions in a proposed merger?
Legal tension: Transaction certainty versus scrutiny of potentially unfair exchange ratios.
Potential sources: Companies Act scheme provisions, valuation reports, explanatory statements and relevant tribunal or appellate decisions.
Suggested boundary: Share-exchange ratios in domestic mergers. Exclude tax structuring and cross-border schemes.
Corporate Responsibility and Emerging Business
21. ESG Disclosures and the Usefulness of Corporate Reporting
Research question: Do selected ESG disclosures give investors sufficiently specific information to evaluate corporate claims?
Legal tension: Standardised reporting versus explanations that remain generic or difficult to compare.
Potential sources: Applicable SEBI BRSR requirements and circulars, annual reports and sustainability disclosures.
Suggested boundary: One environmental indicator across a clearly selected company sample. Confirm reporting obligations for each company and year.
22. Greenwashing and Responsibility for Corporate Sustainability Claims
Research question: How should responsibility for an allegedly misleading environmental claim be assessed under a selected disclosure or consumer-protection framework?
Legal tension: Communicating sustainability ambitions versus substantiating factual claims.
Potential sources: Applicable securities or consumer-protection materials, official greenwashing guidance and public company statements.
Suggested boundary: One type of environmental claim and one primary legal route. Explain whether the statement concerns a present fact, a future target or a qualified commitment.
23. Directors’ Oversight of AI-Assisted Business Decisions
Research question: How should existing directors’ duties apply when a board relies on AI-generated recommendations?
Legal tension: Delegation and innovation versus informed, accountable judgment.
Potential sources: Companies Act duties, governance policies, official AI materials and comparative scholarship.
Suggested boundary: AI-assisted investment or procurement decisions in non-financial companies. Distinguish established duties from proposed applications and acknowledge limited directly relevant case law.
24. Corporate Accountability for Platform Governance Decisions
Research question: How should governance arrangements allocate responsibility for a platform decision that creates a material legal risk?
Legal tension: Fast operational decision-making versus board oversight of significant business risks.
Potential sources: Directors’ duties, relevant platform regulation, annual reports and public risk disclosures.
Suggested boundary: One platform business model and one risk, such as seller verification. Keep the analysis focused on corporate governance.
25. Supply-Chain Sustainability Statements and Corporate Accountability
Research question: How should responsibility be assessed when a company publishes sustainability claims about suppliers it does not directly control?
Legal tension: Reliance on supplier information versus accountability for the company’s own statements.
Potential sources: Applicable reporting rules, supplier codes, sustainability reports and relevant disclosure guidance.
Suggested boundary: One supply-chain issue in one sector. Separate voluntary commitments from enforceable obligations and distinguish this inquiry from the investor-reporting focus of Topic 21.
Compare Corporate Law Dissertation Topics Before Shortlisting
These are planning assessments. Confirm source availability through a preliminary search.
Minority oppression remediesJudgments and tribunal ordersSeparating legal principles from fact-specific findingsDoctrinal researchRelated-party transactionsApproval disclosures and annual reportsPublic documents reveal disclosed processes, not private deliberationsDoctrinal research with document analysisInsolvency plan reviewLegislation, regulations and appellate judgmentsTracking amendments and managing numerous decisionsDoctrinal researchMerger valuationScheme documents and valuation reportsUneven access to transaction materialsSelected case studiesESG reportingBRSR and sustainability disclosuresDefining consistent comparison criteriaDocument analysisAI board oversightExisting duties and policy materialsLimited direct judicial authorityDoctrinal or bounded comparative research
A familiar subject with accessible evidence may support a stronger dissertation than an emerging subject whose essential materials cannot be obtained.
Turn a General Subject Into a Defensible Topic
Useful LLM dissertation topics identify a duty, remedy, transaction or decision that can be examined closely.
Corporate governanceIndependent directors’ oversight of related-party purchases in promoter-controlled listed companiesBoard role, transaction and company contextMinority shareholdersLimits of oppression remedies for shareholders excluded from management in Indian private companiesRemedy, grievance and jurisdictionCorporate insolvencyJudicial scrutiny of operational-creditor treatment at resolution-plan approvalStakeholder conflict and procedural stageSustainabilitySpecificity of water-use disclosures in a selected sample of listed manufacturing companiesIndicator, evidence and company sampleCorporate technologyDirectors’ oversight of AI-assisted procurement decisions in non-financial companiesDecision type and governance responsibility
A narrower title creates room to explain competing arguments, test legal reasoning and justify a conclusion.
Before finalising the title, complete this sentence:
“My dissertation will examine whether, how or to what extent…”
If your answer lists several unrelated problems, reduce the scope. If it merely describes a statute, identify the disputed interpretation or application you want to investigate.
Which Topics Can You Research With Available Sources?
Doctrinal Research Using Legislation and Judgments
Doctrinal research examines what the law requires, how adjudicators interpret it and whether the resulting principles are coherent. It suits questions about directors’ duties, shareholder remedies and insolvency review.
Start with the relevant provision, then trace judicial interpretation and subsequent treatment. Explain why each selected decision matters to your question. A sequence of case summaries becomes useful analysis only when you identify the principles, tensions or inconsistencies connecting them.
Comparative Research Across Two Jurisdictions
A comparison can help evaluate different responses to the same legal problem. It requires an explanation of why the jurisdictions are suitable for comparison.
Consider ownership patterns, enforcement institutions, available remedies and access to evidence. A mechanism operating in one jurisdiction may depend on conditions that differ in India.
Choose one issue and a justified comparison. Include another jurisdiction only when it contributes to answering the central question.
Document Analysis Using Public Corporate Filings
Annual reports, voting outcomes, exchange announcements and governance policies can support questions about disclosure and formal decision-making.
Create consistent assessment criteria before reviewing the full sample. For related-party transaction disclosures, you might examine whether each document identifies:
- The relationship between the parties.
- The nature of the transaction.
- The approval process described.
- The commercial rationale disclosed.
- Information relevant to shareholder scrutiny.
Public filings cannot establish everything that directors privately knew. An absence of disclosed information also does not automatically prove that the underlying process never occurred.
Empirical Research Where Access and Approval Permit
Interviews or surveys may help investigate professional experience. They require a defensible sample, access, consent and any necessary institutional ethics approval.
Use questions that participants can realistically answer. A small interview sample may provide insight into particular experiences, but it cannot establish how all Indian companies behave.
If access is uncertain, develop a viable document-based approach before making interviews essential to the dissertation.
Organise Your Sources Before Writing
Use India Code for statutory materials, SEBI for listed-company regulation, IBBI for insolvency materials and CCI for merger-control materials. Retrieve judgments from official court and tribunal sources where available.
Maintain a source register recording the document title, issuing authority, relevant provision, version, date and reason for inclusion. For judgments, record the court, decision date, relevant reasoning and any subsequent treatment you identify.
Check These Five Things Before Finalising Your Topic
1. Legal Relevance
Can you identify the provision, remedy, duty or regulatory decision at the centre of the question?
A business issue becomes a legal dissertation topic when you explain the legal relationship or uncertainty being investigated.
2. Source Availability
Can you obtain the primary materials needed to answer the question?
Conduct a small pilot search. Record useful documents and essential information that remains inaccessible.
3. Original Contribution
What will your analysis add?
Your contribution might involve a different interpretation, a defined comparison, a new document sample or a critique of an established argument. A different title alone does not establish originality.
4. Supervisor and Programme Fit
Does the topic match your supervisor’s expertise and your programme’s expectations?
Confirm the permitted methods, proposal requirements, word limit and any ethics procedures before building a project around a particular approach.
5. Completion Within the Available Space
Can you explain the framework, analyse evidence and defend a conclusion within the required word limit?
If the title combines several duties, stakeholder groups and jurisdictions, it may require more space than an LLM dissertation permits.
When selecting dissertation topics for LLM, avoid claiming that nobody has studied a subject unless your literature search supports that statement. An established issue can still support an original argument.
Test Your Topic With a Small Source Exercise
Before writing the proposal, try answering one small part of your question using actual materials. This can reveal difficulties that a polished title hides.
For a shareholder-remedies topic, read a few relevant decisions and note the legal test, decisive facts and remedy considered. For a disclosure topic, inspect a small set of company filings and check whether they contain information you can compare consistently.
For an emerging issue such as AI oversight, distinguish direct legal authority from policy discussion and reasoning by analogy.
Record three things:
Evidence availableDocuments obtained and the parts relevant to your questionEvidence missingInformation needed for your argument that public sources do not revealScope adjustmentChanges required to the question, sample, period or method
A missing source may mean that the question needs to change. Public filings could support a study of what companies disclose about board oversight while offering little evidence about what directors discussed privately.
For example, replace “Do boards properly assess cybersecurity risk?” with “What do selected listed companies disclose about board oversight of cybersecurity risk?” if disclosure documents are your principal evidence.
The revised question makes the limits of the study visible.
Build a One-Page Proposal From Your Selected Idea
Use this sequence:
Working title → legal problem → research question → objectives → method → scope → initial sources
Working Title
Related-Party Purchase Approvals in Promoter-Controlled Listed Companies in India.
Legal Problem
Approval and disclosure mechanisms may establish formal compliance without making the commercial justification equally clear to outside shareholders. The dissertation will investigate that distinction without assuming widespread non-compliance.
Research Question
How effectively do the applicable approval and disclosure mechanisms enable shareholder scrutiny of related-party purchases?
Objectives
- Explain the framework applicable to the selected reporting periods.
- Identify the information needed for meaningful scrutiny.
- Evaluate selected public disclosures using consistent criteria.
- Assess whether the findings justify targeted clarification or reform.
Method
Doctrinal analysis combined with structured analysis of public filings.
Scope
A small, justified company sample from one industry over three completed reporting years. Exclude other transaction categories and claims about private board deliberations.
Initial Sources
Applicable Companies Act provisions, the SEBI framework for each reporting period, annual reports, voting disclosures and relevant regulatory decisions.
Keep the proposal provisional. Your source search may show that the company sample, time period or question needs adjustment.
Topic Choices That Often Create Problems
An Excessively Broad Title
“Corporate law and economic development” does not identify the legal issue.
Select a particular mechanism and explain the context in which you will assess it.
An Unsupported Novelty Claim
A new phrase in the title does not establish a research gap.
Review existing dissertations and scholarship before explaining what your work will contribute.
Too Many Jurisdictions
Every additional jurisdiction requires legal context, reliable sources and a reason for inclusion.
Choose jurisdictions because they help answer the question, rather than to make the title appear more ambitious.
A Purely Descriptive Question
“What are directors’ duties?” may produce a useful background chapter, but it leaves the dissertation’s central argument unclear.
Identify a disputed application, interpretive difficulty or evaluative standard.
Dependence on Inaccessible Information
A project about confidential board discussions may stall if participants or records are unavailable.
Check access early and identify what your chosen sources can realistically establish.
A Conclusion Hidden in the Title
“The complete failure of minority protection” directs the project towards a predetermined finding.
Use a question that allows qualified conclusions, including evidence that challenges your initial expectations.
Mixing Different Versions of the Law
A corporate filing and a later judgment may concern different regulatory periods.
Record the applicable framework before comparing them. Explain whether a difference reflects legal change, different facts or a genuine interpretive disagreement.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. How do I choose dissertation topics for LLM corporate law?
Identify a specific legal conflict, choose a jurisdiction and locate the relevant primary sources. Shortlist a few questions, test their feasibility and discuss scope with your supervisor. Select a question that supports analysis within your available time and word limit.
2. What makes a corporate law dissertation topic original?
Originality can come from your argument, interpretation, comparison, source selection or application of existing principles to a defined problem. Explain what existing work has established and what your dissertation will examine differently.
3. Can I write an LLM dissertation without interviews?
Yes, where your programme permits doctrinal or document-based research. Legislation, judgments, regulatory decisions and public corporate filings can provide substantial material. The method should match the question and the evidence needed to answer it.
4. Is comparative corporate law suitable for an LLM dissertation?
Yes, when the comparison addresses the same defined problem in carefully selected jurisdictions. Explain why the comparison is useful and consider differences in ownership, institutions and enforcement before recommending a particular approach for India.
5. How narrow should my dissertation topic be?
Aim for one central legal problem, a defined jurisdiction and a clear company context or procedural stage. If you analyse corporate documents, specify the period and sample-selection criteria. Leave sufficient space for analysis after explaining the background.
6. Which sources should I check before topic approval?
Check relevant legislation, amendments, commencement notifications, rules, regulations and leading judgments. Add regulatory materials and corporate documents where needed. Review academic literature and existing dissertations to position your contribution.
7. Which corporate law dissertation topics are manageable using public sources?
Topics involving published judgments, regulatory orders and accessible company filings can be practical starting points. Minority-shareholder remedies, resolution-plan review and selected disclosure questions are possible options. Test access before committing to a title.
8. Can I choose AI or ESG for my corporate law dissertation?
Yes, provided you identify a specific corporate law question. AI board oversight and the usefulness of selected sustainability disclosures are possible directions. Distinguish established obligations from policy proposals and acknowledge limits in directly relevant evidence.
Conclusion
The strongest dissertation topics for LLM corporate law give you a legal disagreement you can investigate with accessible evidence. Shortlist three ideas, examine a small set of primary materials and write a brief problem statement for each. Check whether you can identify competing arguments, explain your method and define what falls outside the study.
Develop the most workable option with your supervisor before committing to the final proposal. A precise question and a realistic source base give you a stronger foundation for analysis, writing and defending your conclusions.
Need help turning a broad corporate law interest into a workable proposal? ThesisLikho offers guidance on topic refinement, research questions, proposal structure and methodology. Bring your shortlisted ideas, university requirements and initial reading so the discussion can focus on a project you can investigate and defend yourself.