>Like, I understand perfectly what you are saying.

No, you clearly don't.

>It’s still lazy writing for the writers to make it seem like a consulting contract is important when it would have no impact on the line of succession in the event the CEO and board member dies. Like, it’s just silly to show him forcing the founder to do it with ominous music and a blow job when that’s the wrong legal document! Like, that doesn’t seem like something that gets explained later.

Well, yes, it does get explained later, for the most part. But if you're going to nitpick wether or not it was the correct legal document instead of just going with the idea of what is going on then you're just looking for faults and were never going to enjoy it.

Almost none of your very specific complaints are actually relevant to the show beyond just being mad about minute details that have no bearing on the themes or story.

> why he forced the founder to sign a contract making him a consultant but didn’t bother to force him to sign a written consent or resolution putting him on the board?

Since, for some reason, I can't respond to the person below me who said I didn't know what I was talking about, I'll address that here:

The company is literally failing because Sang doesn't know what he's doing. There are several conversations about this and how everyone is in shock that he was not only running the company into the ground but hadn't put any safeguards in place.