Methodology
How the intelligence works.
The rule is simple in principle and strict in practice: retrieve from primary sources, verify the authority path, audit the filing risk, and hold external action behind review gates.
9,551,164
Court opinions on record
1,900,000+
Primary-source passages
530,080
Citation references
87,085
Cross-references
Verification spine
Retrieved and verified from primary sources.
The hosted workspace keeps legal work close to the record. It does not treat fluent text as authority. The source path, treatment status, forum fit, and filing posture remain visible until the work is ready for review.
Retrieve
Primary sources first
LAW searches the allowlisted corpus, citation references, holdings, maxims, and matter record before any legal assertion enters a workspace.
Verify
Citation-grounded checks
The verifier separates citation existence, quote support, source fit, negative treatment, forum authority, and unresolved review needs.
Audit
Filing readiness review
Packets are checked against jurisdiction, standing, service, formatting, citations, exhibits, and completeness before filing reliance.
Approve
Nothing leaves silently
Client-facing, served, or filed work remains locked behind review gates. Research can move quickly; external action still requires authorization.
The engine
Research architecture behind the workspace.
Some layers are visible in the hosted product today. Others are engine-side methodology that powers retrieval, doctrine mapping, and gap research. Public claims are separated accordingly.
Complete source retrieval
The engine combines passage search, citation-chain search, holdings, maxims, documents, parties, facts, and evidence into one research path.
Doctrine maps under review
Primary sources expand doctrine maps over time. New understanding is promoted only through controlled research and verification paths.
Matter record graph
Matter facts, evidence, entities, authorities, and procedural posture are represented as a graph so legal conclusions can be traced back to their factual and legal anchors.
Forum-aware authority
Authority is weighted by court, jurisdiction, treatment, and procedural context. A strong source in one forum may be weak or inapposite in another.
Strategic research without overclaiming
Research may study judge, forum, and doctrine patterns. The hosted platform presents those ideas as methodology unless a specific workflow is verified in the product.
Gap research queue
When authority is missing, conflicting, or unsupported, the engine queues the gap for research instead of filling it with unsupported language.
Verified now
Capability claims stay inside the evidence.
These capabilities are safe to feature because they are backed by code paths, public constants, or implemented workflow surfaces.
- 1,900,000+ primary-source passages and 9,551,164 court opinions on record
- 94 mapped CJS volumes, 1,178 maxims, and 16 doctrine argument chains
- 530,080 citation references and 87,085 cross-references
- Citation verification, quote checks, good-law review, and negative-treatment signals
- 100-point filing audit for jurisdiction, standing, service, formatting, citations, and completeness
- Court-agnostic filing-ready DOCX/PDF packets with exhibits and approval gates
- Assisted electronic submission for supported portals: federal CM/ECF and New York NYSCEF; certified-mail fallback elsewhere
Research boundary
Published research is not repackaged as platform capability.
LAW publishes research in public corpus theory, doctrine mapping, and structural legal analysis. Those papers may report experimental measurements. The product does not present those measurements as guaranteed outcomes, litigation predictions, or automatic filing power.
Published research stays separate
Doctrine-cluster experiments, pre-consensus signal studies, dormant rights research, and manufactured precedent maps stay in the research series unless a hosted workflow separately proves the behavior.
Platform claims stay evidence-backed
Public capability language is limited to the corpus, verification spine, filing packet workflows, review gates, and supported e-submission portals that are backed by this codebase.
Outputs remain review-gated
Research notes, drafts, citations, and packets are retrieved and verified from primary sources - not treated as final authority - and remain subject to user and professional review.
Institution-grade control
Fast research, slow release, visible authority.
LAW can accelerate retrieval, mapping, drafting, and audit preparation. It does not remove the duty to verify. It keeps the source record, review state, and filing authorization in the workflow so unsupported work is stopped before it leaves the workspace.