Building DepoStack in Public: What Court Reporting Software Should Be

I’m building DepoStack in the open because the alternative — disappearing for a year and emerging with a logo and a launch video — is exactly the playbook that gave court reporting the software it has now. I’d rather show the work.

Here’s the thesis, and the principles I’m holding myself to.

What’s broken

The problems I keep running into are practical: proprietary formats that make recordings hard to open outside one vendor’s software; cloud dependencies around sensitive testimony; pricing tied to seats or usage; and AI features framed as a substitute for the professional who remains accountable for the record.

Those constraints are the starting point for DepoStack.

The principles

• Vendor-neutral. Your workflow shouldn’t be hostage to one model, one format, or one company — mine included. Portable methods over proprietary lock-in.
• On-device by default. Testimony stays on infrastructure you control unless there’s a real reason for it to leave.
• Professional-first. A feature should reduce friction for the reporter, paralegal, or attorney while leaving consequential judgment and sign-off with that professional.
• Free where it should be free. Some plumbing is just plumbing. The DepoAudio case study explains why the first piece is free and open source on purpose, and it won’t be the last thing I give away.

Why public

Because the field can tell me where I’m wrong faster than I can find out alone, and because trust is built in the open. The reporters and attorneys who produce the record know things no product manager does. I’d rather build with them than at them.

That feedback loop starts with building from inside the court-reporting workflow, where a bad abstraction has consequences the next morning.

DepoStack early access is open. If a current court-reporting handoff is missing from the work, send me the exact failure point.