The working A prototype: use its controls to test the build question.
Separate research, interpretation, inference, strategy, approval and attorney-only judgment in legal work.
RN conceived the question, structured the evidence boundaries, designed the experience, implemented the prototype and documented its limits.
This independent prototype demonstrates an approach; it is not a deployed client system, professional advice or proof of real-world outcomes.
Work through the controls with a situation of your own rather than the sample values. The tool responds to what you put in, so the useful output comes from real input, and everything is processed in your browser as you go. Any sample content you find already loaded is there to show the shape of a filled-in state, and you can clear it and start again at any point.
The build overview sets out the question, the purpose, the role and the evidence status in one place, and the public record behind it states what changed, what another person can reuse and what supports the system. If you want to judge how far this build should be trusted, the record is the page to read, not this one.
BUILD 014-A
Legal Judgment Architecture
Decompose legal work into evidence, interpretation, inference, strategy, approval, professional judgment, and client authority—then make supervision inspectable.
ARCHITECTURE
SUPERVISED ARCHITECTURE
Human review: Strong · Inherited Build 012: CONTROLLED USE
Authority research
ai assist- Input
- Bounded issue, jurisdiction, facts, and source scope
- Output
- Candidate primary authorities with locators
- Reviewer
- Supervising lawyer or trained researcher under supervision
- Authority
- Reviewer may reject sources and expand or stop research
Factual and authority synthesis
draft under supervision- Input
- Verified facts and authorities
- Output
- Proposition-to-source table with conflicts and uncertainty
- Reviewer
- Supervising lawyer reviews every material proposition
- Authority
- Reviewer may revise, reject, seek more evidence, or stop reliance
Legal interpretation
draft under supervision- Input
- Verified law, facts, procedural posture, and jurisdiction
- Output
- Alternative interpretations with support and counterauthority
- Reviewer
- Licensed lawyer competent in the matter and jurisdiction
- Authority
- Lawyer selects, rejects, or reframes the interpretation
Fact-to-law inference
lawyer only- Input
- Record facts, credibility limits, law, and interpretations
- Output
- Lawyer-owned assessment of how law may apply
- Reviewer
- Responsible matter lawyer
- Authority
- Lawyer owns and may change or withhold the assessment
Matter strategy
lawyer only- Input
- Client objective, legal assessment, risk, cost, timing, and alternatives
- Output
- Candid options and lawyer recommendation
- Reviewer
- Responsible lawyer with client and matter context
- Authority
- Lawyer recommends; client retains decisions allocated to the client
Advice or filing approval
lawyer only- Input
- Final work product, sources, representations, and required disclosures
- Output
- Approved, revised, withheld, or escalated legal work
- Reviewer
- Lawyer signing, sending, filing, or taking responsibility
- Authority
- Lawyer may refuse approval and stop submission or communication
Client decision
client decision- Input
- Candid legal advice, options, consequences, and unanswered questions
- Output
- Informed client instruction on objectives or settlement where allocated
- Reviewer
- Responsible lawyer confirms communication and scope of client authority
- Authority
- Client decides matters allocated to the client; lawyer retains ethical duties
RESPONSIBILITY IS EXPLICIT
Boundary: educational workflow architecture—not legal advice, an ethics opinion, an unauthorized-practice determination, or jurisdiction-specific compliance. Applicable rules and supervising counsel control.
No matter, client, or personal data is transmitted or stored by this local demonstration.