There are two versions of discovering a licence compliance gap. The gap itself is the same in both. The cost difference between them is not.
Version one: you find it first
✓ Proactive discovery
You run an independent licence review. It surfaces a gap - user counts beyond entitlements, a module deployed without a licence, a connector added after an integration project. The exposure is real, but you now have time and information.
You understand exactly what the gap is. You control when the remediation conversation happens. You approach your account manager at renewal with a clear proposal, on your terms. The framing is commercial: here's what we've found, here's what we're proposing. OpenText is in a standard sales conversation. You are not under pressure.
Remediation happens at market rates, on a timeline you've chosen, with your leverage intact.
Version two: OpenText finds it first
⚠ Audit discovery
The audit notice arrives. The clock starts - typically 30 to 60 days to respond to OpenText's initial findings document. You're now running an internal investigation and responding to an external process simultaneously, to someone else's timeline.
OpenText knows their position. They've had time to build it. You're still figuring out yours. The framing has already been set: this is a compliance exercise, not a commercial conversation.
The cost calculation is different here. Where proactive remediation is priced as a licence expansion at renewal, audit remediation typically includes backdated licence fees covering the period of non-compliance. OpenText's contract terms - including those inherited from acquired product lines such as Actuate and BIRT PowerDocs - explicitly permit the recovery of backdated fees where under-reported usage is identified. Some product schedules include interest provisions.
The duration of the backdated period depends on when the non-compliance started. For gaps that have built up over years of organic growth, that can represent a significant multiple of the gap itself.
The negotiating reality
The customers who come out of audit remediation in the best position are those who enter the conversation with an independent understanding of the exposure - their own view of what the contract actually requires and what the numbers actually show, not just OpenText's initial findings document.
That's harder to achieve when you're starting from scratch under audit conditions. It's much easier when you've already done the analysis. The initial findings document is rarely the final word - but challenging it effectively requires knowing your own position first.
The investment in avoiding this
The cost of a proactive review is predictable, bounded, and small relative to the cost of the alternative. It doesn't guarantee you won't be audited - audits can still happen. But it changes what you find when you get there. You're no longer the party that knows less. You're a counterparty who came prepared.
The gap is still a gap. But when you find it first, the price is just the gap.