I think, this is actually easy, but my simple solution makes the assumption, that both the job-offerer and the job-taker are smart people.
Here's how it goes: "To disclose something" is only a comprehensible term for the citation of something that is disclosable. But it's get very blurry, when you only paraphrase. It get's even more blurry at the point, where the paraphrasing is chosen so smart, that only other very smart people can see, that someone actually disclosed something. But: At a jury, you can play the innocent and a little bit naive person, that didn't know what he _actually_ said. Since the people tend to say about a person "He's propably not that smart, rather than naive!", because otherwise they would admit another person is way smarter then them, you are save.
Compare it to those logic-puzzles where you have set of sentences given and can derive a definitive answer by logical-deduction thru the interference of the sentences only. That would be my approach.
Here's how it goes: "To disclose something" is only a comprehensible term for the citation of something that is disclosable. But it's get very blurry, when you only paraphrase. It get's even more blurry at the point, where the paraphrasing is chosen so smart, that only other very smart people can see, that someone actually disclosed something. But: At a jury, you can play the innocent and a little bit naive person, that didn't know what he _actually_ said. Since the people tend to say about a person "He's propably not that smart, rather than naive!", because otherwise they would admit another person is way smarter then them, you are save.
Compare it to those logic-puzzles where you have set of sentences given and can derive a definitive answer by logical-deduction thru the interference of the sentences only. That would be my approach.