Documenting concurrent ALM users for a rebuttal

A concurrent ALM rebuttal stands or falls on its evidence. The argument that a concurrent entitlement was never exceeded is only persuasive when it is backed by session records that show the true peak of simultaneous users, and a rebuttal that asserts a lower number without documenting it invites the audit to keep its headcount based figure. Knowing which records prove concurrency, and how to assemble them, is what turns a claim into a finding that comes down.

Application Lifecycle Management, the test and quality management platform that came to OpenText through the Micro Focus acquisition, is frequently licensed on a concurrent basis, where the chargeable figure is the peak number of simultaneous sessions rather than the size of the provisioned population. An audit that counts named seats against a concurrent pool inflates the finding by the entire gap between headcount and peak, and the rebuttal that closes that gap depends on documentation. The general mechanics of the distinction are set out in named versus concurrent user counting in ALM audits, and this note is about the proof.

What a concurrent ALM rebuttal must document

The core of a concurrent rebuttal is the peak simultaneous session figure, the high water mark of users logged in at the same time over the measured period. The license server, the ALM site administration records, and the session logs each carry data that bears on that figure, and a complete rebuttal draws them together so the peak is demonstrated rather than asserted. The method for producing and presenting that figure is set out in how to challenge an ALM concurrent user headcount, and the documentation is what gives that challenge its force.

A strong rebuttal package usually contains four things: the entitlement that confirms the concurrent model, the session logs that record login and logout times, the concurrency calculation that derives the peak from those logs, and a reconciliation that shows why the audit headcount figure overstates the licensed metric. Each element answers a question the audit will ask, and together they leave little room for the finding to rest on provisioned population rather than simultaneous use.

Where the documentation comes from

The first source is the entitlement itself, because a concurrent rebuttal only applies where the agreement and the Additional License Authorizations grant a concurrent model. Confirming the model is the discipline described in reconciling ALM entitlements before an audit, and it must come first, because documenting concurrency for an entitlement that is actually named would prove the wrong thing. Once the model is confirmed, the session logs become the decisive record, and they must be preserved intact rather than summarised, because the raw login and logout times are what allow the peak to be calculated and defended.

The reconciliation closes the loop by explaining the gap. A provisioned population of several hundred named accounts may correspond to a peak of a few dozen simultaneous sessions, and the rebuttal documents why: staggered shifts, intermittent use, leavers still listed in the inventory, and service accounts that never log in interactively. That reconciliation is the same cleaning discipline that a named user defense applies to the inventory, the work set out in defending an ALM named user overclaim line by line, turned to the purpose of explaining concurrency.

How the documentation maps to the finding

The reason documentation decides the outcome is that the audit's opening figure is usually the easiest number to compute, the count of provisioned accounts, while the defensible figure, the peak concurrency, takes work to produce. The rebuttal shifts the basis of the finding from the easy number to the correct one, and it can only do that with evidence. A documented peak that sits comfortably inside the concurrent entitlement removes the overage entirely; a documented peak that sits slightly above it narrows the finding to the genuine excess rather than the whole headcount gap.

This is why the same evidence that proves a concurrent position also informs whether a forward conversion is worth pursuing, because a buyer who can document a low peak knows how small a concurrent entitlement actually needs to be. The wider Dimensions family raises a parallel model question, where confirming concurrent versus named is the first step, the subject of Dimensions CM concurrent versus named licensing, and the documentation discipline carries across.

How we document a concurrent ALM rebuttal under the four Rs

Respond. OpenText gives seven days notice before an audit and the right to copy relevant records, and the seven day notice clock starts immediately. Within that window we take over the single controlled channel and preserve the entitlement, the license server records, and the session logs together, because a concurrent rebuttal built later depends on logs that must be captured now.

Reconstruct. We build the effective license position against entitlements and the Additional License Authorizations independently, confirming the concurrent model and calculating the peak simultaneous session figure from the preserved logs, so the rebuttal rests on a number we can demonstrate.

Rebut. We challenge every line that counts the provisioned population against a concurrent pool, presenting the entitlement, the session logs, the peak concurrency calculation, and the reconciliation that explains the gap. The finding falls to the documented peak.

Resolve. We settle on the count the documentation supports and, where it serves you, convert forward into an OpenPass agreement that records the concurrent model and how the peak is measured, so the next review cannot revert to a headcount figure.

An anonymised outcome

Documentation matters because the remedy is severe. On noncompliance the licensee is deemed to have acquired licenses at then current list price, owes back maintenance and support, owes first year maintenance on the new licenses, and reimburses the cost OpenText incurs performing the audit, so a finding left on a headcount basis multiplies an unproven number across every charge. Our anonymised case files show what documented correction achieves: an insurance ECM seat count finding fell from $7.2M to $1.6M, a 78 percent reduction built on disqualifying accounts the raw count had treated as licensable. A concurrent ALM finding answers to the same discipline, because the documented peak is the number that holds.

Build the evidence before you make the argument

The durable point is that a concurrent ALM rebuttal is won by documentation, because the peak simultaneous session figure must be demonstrated from the logs rather than asserted. A buyer who confirms the model, preserves the session data, calculates the peak, and reconciles the gap holds the finding to the licensed concurrency. To build the position, read named versus concurrent user counting in ALM audits, how to challenge an ALM concurrent user headcount, reconciling ALM entitlements before an audit, and defending an ALM named user overclaim line by line. For the full method see our ALM and LoadRunner audit defense track and our complete OpenText audit defense playbook for 2026. If an ALM finding rests on headcount rather than concurrency, open a case.