FOR LITIGATION PRACTICE · LOCAL-FIRST · VERIFIER BETA OPEN

Legal AI that stays in the building.

Olympus Legal Systems is an all-in-one AI partner for litigators — drafting, research, and verification built from real practice, not a chat wrapper. It runs on hardware your firm controls. Client documents, transcripts, and work product never leave your custody.

And nothing it drafts ships on faith: deterministic gates check the work before you see it.

Beta access covers the Verifier. Every other capability on this page is labelled Available, In build, or On the roadmap — and we hold that line.

NO CLOUD BY DEFAULT

Your documents are processed on your hardware, inside your walls.

SCRIPTS GATE, MODELS ADVISE

Deterministic code decides pass or fail. Model opinion is advisory, and recorded as such.

BUILT IN PRACTICE

Every rule in the system exists because of something that actually happened in litigation.

§ 01

THE BETA · AVAILABLE

From draft to verification packet.

The Verifier checks the work the way opposing counsel will — then hands a person the packet to sign. Below, one sample matter moves through all four gates. Nothing is staged to flatter the product: checks fail, readers disagree, and one act is labelled In build because it is.

BETA ACCESS

The Verifier is the beta.

Beta firms get the Verifier: paste or point it at a draft, get classified verdicts with evidence. The rest of the system ships to beta firms as it clears our own gates.

Request beta access →

WHAT ARRIVES

You get a document, not a score.

The Verifier does not hand back a dashboard, a confidence number or a list of links to go and check. It returns one 17-page packet in which every finding carries its own evidence — and a marker that ties the words in the draft to the source that decides them, in 3 places, on 3 numbered pages.

  1. ANNOTATED DRAFTPAGE 6

    “The risk reasonably to be perceived defines the duty to be obeyed”

    Counsel's words, tagged in place.

  2. INDEX & INITIALSPAGE 8

    VERIFIEDchars [12,004, 12,062) · exact
    SEEN

    The finding, its offsets, and a column to initial.

  3. ANNOTATED SOURCEPAGE 10

    …The risk reasonably to be perceived defines the duty to be obeyed, and risk imports relation…
    Palsgraf, 248 NY 339, 344 · reporter text

    The same tag over the matched text.

One marker. Three places. Pages 6, 8, 10. The tag is the cross-reference: on screen it is a link, and on paper the same tag and the initialled index carry the same route. A reviewer confirms a finding by eye, in seconds, without leaving the document.
17
pages
14
findings, each tagged
7
annotated pages
2
panel records
0
documents you must open yourself
  • Not a results screen.

    The source text travels with the finding. Every claim is printed beside the words it judges, so the machine's conclusion never has to be taken on faith.

  • Limits before findings.

    Coverage is counted, never scored as a percentage. What was refused, excluded or left unexamined is printed before anything it found.

  • Damaged text stays damaged.

    A span extracted from a bad scan appears exactly as extracted. Nothing is quietly repaired to look tidier than the record is.

  • A person signs it.

    The last page is a signature block for whoever's name goes on the filing. The packet is built to be reviewed by a human, and to be signed by one.

That is what arrives. Below, it is built in front of you — six citations, then the matter's own record, then four paraphrases a panel argues over, and finally the packet itself.

A scripted reproduction of a real verification pass, shown in miniature. In the product, this runs on your record, on your hardware.

ACT I — THE CITATION GATE

Available

Six citations from a sample reply memorandum face the gate.

MACRO · READ IT

SAMPLE — REPLY MEMORANDUM · POINT II

Foreseeability is not an afterthought; it is the measure of the duty itself. “The risk reasonably to be perceived defines the duty to be obeyed” (Palsgraf v Long Is. R.R. Co., 248 NY 339, 344 [1928]). Where the parties stand in a fiduciary relation, the standard is stricter still: “Not honesty alone, but the punctilio of an honor the most sensi­tive, is then the standard of behavior” (Meinhard v Salmon, 249 NY 458, 464 [1928]). A negligently made product “is then a thing of imminent danger” (MacPherson v Buick Motor Co., 217 NY 382 [1916]). Respondent’s reliance on Matter of Haney v Ulster Cty. Bd. of Elections (Sup Ct, Ulster County, index No. EF2024-1189, May 14, 2024) is misplaced, as is its citation of Tillbury v Ardsley Terrace Assoc., 84 NY2d 913 [1994] (“a landlord’s constructive notice may be presumed from the mere passage of time”). Finally, equity forbids the result below: “No one shall be permitted to profit by his own fraud, or to take advantage of his own wrong” (Riggs v Palmer, 115 NY 506, 511 [1889]).

Six citations. Read them the way opposing counsel will, then run the pass.

Run the pass

MICRO · WORK IT

Foreseeability is not an afterthought; it is the measure of the duty itself. “The risk reasonably to be perceived defines the duty to be obeyed” (Palsgraf v Long Is. R.R. Co., 248 NY 339, 344 [1928]). Where the parties stand in a fiduciary relation, the standard is stricter still: “Not honesty alone, but the punctilio of an honor the most sensi­tive, is then the standard of behavior” (Meinhard v Salmon, 249 NY 458, 464 [1928]). A negligently made product “is then a thing of imminent danger” (MacPherson v Buick Motor Co., 217 NY 382 [1916]). Respondent’s reliance on Matter of Haney v Ulster Cty. Bd. of Elections (Sup Ct, Ulster County, index No. EF2024-1189, May 14, 2024) is misplaced, as is its citation of Tillbury v Ardsley Terrace Assoc., 84 NY2d 913 [1994] (“a landlord’s constructive notice may be presumed from the mere passage of time”). Finally, equity forbids the result below: “No one shall be permitted to profit by his own fraud, or to take advantage of his own wrong” (Riggs v Palmer, 115 NY 506, 511 [1889]).

AS DRAFTED
“The risk reasonably to be perceived defines the duty to be obeyed” (Palsgraf v Long Is. R.R. Co., 248 NY 339, 344 [1928])
AS FOUND IN THE SOURCEPalsgraf v Long Is. R.R. Co., 248 NY 339, 344 [1928]
The risk reasonably to be perceived defines the duty to be obeyed, and risk imports relation; it is risk to another or to others within the range of apprehension.

Palsgraf v Long Is. R.R. Co., 248 NY 339, 344 [1928]

Open this span in the packet →
RECEIPT · CHECK 1
resolve   248 NY 339 ......... found
fetch     opinion text ....... ok
audit     served span ........ clean
compare   quote v. source .... exact match at p 344
VERIFIED

The quotation appears verbatim at the cited page. Verbatim-in-source is what this verdict certifies — whether it supports the argument is a separate stage (R-7).

AS DRAFTED
“Not honesty alone,··but the punctilio of an honor the most sensi-tive, is then the standard of behavior” (Meinhard v Salmon, 249 NY 458, 464 [1928])

Boxed above — curly quotes · soft hyphen · doubled spacing — are what normalisation removed before comparison. Characters with no glyph of their own are shown as one.

AS FOUND IN THE SOURCEMeinhard v Salmon, 249 NY 458, 464 [1928]
Not honesty alone, but the punctilio of an honor the most sensitive, is then the standard of behavior. Uncompromising rigidity has been the attitude of courts of equity.

Meinhard v Salmon, 249 NY 458, 464 [1928]

Open this span in the packet →
RECEIPT · CHECK 2
resolve   249 NY 458 ......... found
fetch     opinion text ....... ok
audit     served span ........ clean
compare   quote v. source .... MISMATCH (3 artifacts)
normalize curly quotes, soft hyphen, spacing
compare   normalized ......... exact match at p 464
VERIFIED · NORMALIZED

The draft’s quotation carried typographic artifacts — curly quotes and a line-break hyphen — that make a faithful quote look altered. A naive character match would have accused it. Normalisation is applied before judgment, because a correct quote that looks fabricated is worse than a missed fabrication (R-1).

AS DRAFTED
“is then a thing of imminent danger” (MacPherson v Buick Motor Co., 217 NY 382 [1916])
AS FOUND IN THE SOURCEMacPherson v Buick Motor Co., 217 NY 382, 389 [1916]
If the nature of a thing is such that it is reasonably certain to place life and limb in peril when negligently made, it is then a thing of danger. Its nature gives warning of the consequence to be expected.

MacPherson v Buick Motor Co., 217 NY 382, 389 [1916]

Open this span in the packet →
RECEIPT · CHECK 3
resolve   217 NY 382 ......... found
fetch     opinion text ....... ok
audit     served span ........ clean
compare   quote v. source .... NO MATCH
search    nearest span ....... found, distance 1 word
CORRECTED

The opinion says a negligently made thing “is then a thing of danger.” The draft’s added word — “imminent” — belongs to the older rule this opinion was in the act of leaving behind. The verdict returns the nearest known-good text with attribution, so the fix is one click by the practitioner away from being implemented (R-4).

NEAREST KNOWN-GOOD

“If the nature of a thing is such that it is reasonably certain to place life and limb in peril when negligently made, it is then a thing of danger.”

MacPherson v Buick Motor Co., 217 NY 382, 389 [1916]
AS DRAFTED
Matter of Haney v Ulster Cty. Bd. of Elections (Sup Ct, Ulster County, index No. EF2024-1189, May 14, 2024)
AS FOUND IN THE SOURCE
NO SOURCE TO SET BESIDE IT — the search trail is below.
RECEIPT · CHECK 4
resolve   index EF2024-1189 .. not in corpus
resolve   caption search ..... no match
resolve   docket lookup ...... unpublished trial-court order
halt      cannot resolve — no source to compare against
UNVERIFIED

An unpublished trial-court order that public case-law databases cannot see. The Verifier could not find it — and that is all it will claim. Absence of evidence is recorded as absence, never inflated into an accusation (R-3).

AS DRAFTED
Tillbury v Ardsley Terrace Assoc., 84 NY2d 913 [1994] (“a landlord’s constructive notice may be presumed from the mere passage of time”)
AS FOUND IN THE SOURCEPeople v Aksoy, 84 NY2d 912, 913 [1994]
MEMORANDUM. The order of the Appellate Division in each case should be affirmed. Defendant Janoff, an attorney, seeks to overturn his convictions for insurance fraud and attempted petit larceny, and codefendant Aksoy seeks to overturn her convictions for the same crimes as well as for scheme to defraud in connection with defendant Janoff's filing of over 15 fraudulent personal injury claims on behalf of Aksoy and her infant son against various insurers over a 10-year period.

People v Aksoy, 84 NY2d 912, 913 [1994]

Open this span in the packet →
RECEIPT · CHECK 5
resolve   84 NY2d 913 ........ found — different caption
verify    volume + page ...... belong to another opinion
search    caption ............ no such case in the official reports
finding   positive evidence of non-existence
FABRICATED

This is not a lookup failure. Volume 84, page 913 exists and belongs to a different, unrelated opinion, and no decision under this caption appears in the official reports. That is a positive finding of non-existence — the only thing this system will ever call fabrication.

AS DRAFTED
“No one shall be permitted to profit by his own fraud, or to take advantage of his own wrong” (Riggs v Palmer, 115 NY 506, 511 [1889])
AS FOUND IN THE SOURCERiggs v Palmer, 115 NY 506, 511 [1889] · damaged reporter extraction
…no one shall be permitted to pro t by his own fra ud, or to take adv nt- age of his own wrong, or to found any claim upon his own iniq uity…

Riggs v Palmer, 115 NY 506, 511 [1889] · damaged reporter extraction

Open this span in the packet →

The record is unfit to quote. No verdict is rendered against it.

RECEIPT · CHECK 6
resolve   115 NY 506 ......... found
fetch     opinion text ....... ok (scanned reporter)
audit     served span ........ DAMAGED — OCR artifacts
          "pro t by his own fra ud, or to take adv nt-"
halt      record unfit to quote — refusing to grade
REFUSED · RECORD DAMAGED

The citation is almost certainly good — but the extracted text of this scanned opinion is damaged, and a verdict rendered against a corrupted record is not a verdict. The Verifier audits the record before judging it, and refuses on the served span (R-2).

MACRO · SEE IT

SAMPLE — REPLY MEMORANDUM · POINT II

Foreseeability is not an afterthought; it is the measure of the duty itself. VERIFIED. Where the parties stand in a fiduciary relation, the standard is stricter still: VERIFIED · NORMALIZED. A negligently made product CORRECTED. Respondent’s reliance on UNVERIFIED is misplaced, as is its citation of FABRICATED. Finally, equity forbids the result below: REFUSED · RECORD DAMAGED.

CONFIRMED2
CHANGED1
REJECTED OR OTHERWISE DETERMINED3

verified 2 · corrected 1 · unverified 1 · fabricated 1 · refused 1

Two checks failed. Only one is a lie.

UNVERIFIED

Check 4 could not be found. The Verifier reports exactly that — an unresolvable citation, with the search trail. What you do next is a judgment call, and it is yours.

FABRICATED

Check 5 does not exist. The cited page belongs to another opinion, and no such caption appears in the reports. That is a finding, backed by positive evidence — the kind you could stand up and say in court.

Most tools collapse these two into one alarm. OLS never does — because they call for different conversations with the drafter, and different words to the court.

ACT II — THE RECORD GATE

Available

Case law is public. Your record is not — and the gate is source-agnostic. Here it verifies an attorney affirmation against the matter’s own record: transcripts, exhibits, affidavits, the instrument index.

MACRO · READ IT

SAMPLE — ATTORNEY AFFIRMATION · ¶¶ 6–9

6. Deponent conceded the condition long predated the notice: “the boiler had been out of service since at least the first week of January” (Tr. 141:7–12). 7. A true copy of the lease, dated March 1, 2019, is annexed as Exhibit C. 8. The superintendent’s account is not to the contrary (Rivera Aff. ¶ 14). 9. The parties’ course of dealing appears in the correspondence annexed as Exhibit F.

Four record cites. Same gate, and now the sources are the ones that never leave your building.

Run the record pass

MICRO · WORK IT

6. Deponent conceded the condition long predated the notice: “the boiler had been out of service since at least the first week of January” (Tr. 141:7–12). 7. A true copy of the lease, dated March 1, 2019, is annexed as Exhibit C. 8. The superintendent’s account is not to the contrary (Rivera Aff. ¶ 14). 9. The parties’ course of dealing appears in the correspondence annexed as Exhibit F.

AS DRAFTED
“the boiler had been out of service since at least the first week of January” (Tr. 141:7–12)
AS FOUND IN THE SOURCEDeposition transcript · Tr. 141:7–12; matched at 141:9–10
141:7 Q. And before the notice, what was the state of the boiler? 141:9 A. the boiler had been out of service since at least the first week of January — I know because I logged it.

Deposition transcript · Tr. 141:7–12; matched at 141:9–10

Open this span in the packet →
RECEIPT · CHECK 1
resolve   transcript p 141 ....... found
audit     served span ........... clean
compare   quote v. record ...... exact match at 141:9
VERIFIED

The deposition transcript is part of the indexed record; the quote is verbatim at the cited line. Same gate, different shelf.

AS DRAFTED
A true copy of the lease, dated March 1, 2019, is annexed as Exhibit C
AS FOUND IN THE SOURCEInstrument index · Exhibit C, dates as endorsed
27 Feb 2019 — execution — signature block, above the acknowledgment. 1 Mar 2019 — commencement of term — habendum: “to have and to hold for a term commencing…”

Instrument index · Exhibit C, dates as endorsed

Open this span in the packet →
RECEIPT · CHECK 2
resolve   Exhibit C ............. found — lease
index     instrument dates ...... executed Feb 27 2019 · commencing Mar 1 2019
compare   description v. index .. MISMATCH (date role)
CORRECTED

The lease is real and annexed — but “dated” names the wrong date role. The instrument index resolves execution, commencement, and recording dates by structural cue, so the correction is specific, not a scold.

NEAREST KNOWN-GOOD

“…the lease executed February 27, 2019 and commencing March 1, 2019, annexed as Exhibit C.”

Instrument index · Exhibit C, dates as endorsed
AS DRAFTED
(Rivera Aff. ¶ 14)
AS FOUND IN THE SOURCERivera affidavit ¶ 14 · damaged scan extraction
14. The supe intendent states that he at ended to the boi er on…

Rivera affidavit ¶ 14 · damaged scan extraction

Open this span in the packet →

The record is unfit to quote. No verdict is rendered against it.

RECEIPT · CHECK 3
resolve   Rivera affidavit ...... found (scanned)
audit     served span ........... DAMAGED — OCR artifacts
halt      record unfit to quote — refusing to grade
REFUSED · RECORD DAMAGED

R-2 does not stop applying because the source is yours. A verdict against a corrupted scan is not a verdict.

AS DRAFTED
annexed as Exhibit F
AS FOUND IN THE SOURCEExhibit index · complete as served
A — notice of termination B — certified mail receipt C — lease D — ledger extract E — correspondence, Jan–Mar

Exhibit index · complete as served

Open this span in the packet →
RECEIPT · CHECK 4
resolve   Exhibit F ............. not in index
verify    record index .......... complete as served
finding   no Exhibit F exists in this record
NOT IN RECORD

Here is the quiet difference between Acts I and II. Case-law lookups are open-world — absence of evidence is only absence, so Act I says unverified. Your record is closed-world: the index is complete, so absence is provable. The gate knows which world it is standing in.

MACRO · SEE IT

SAMPLE — ATTORNEY AFFIRMATION · ¶¶ 6–9

6. Deponent conceded the condition long predated the notice: VERIFIED. 7. CORRECTED. 8. The superintendent’s account is not to the contrary REFUSED · RECORD DAMAGED. 9. The parties’ course of dealing appears in the correspondence NOT IN RECORD.

CONFIRMED1
CHANGED1
REJECTED OR OTHERWISE DETERMINED2

verified 1 · corrected 1 · refused 1 · not in record 1

The same verdicts, the same refusals, the same corrections — pointed at the documents that never leave your building.

ACT III — THE PARAPHRASE PANEL

Available · panel in build

A quote proves text. A paraphrase claims meaning — and meaning cannot be checked by string comparison. So this act shows the whole procedure, in the order it runs: a script finds the language, a 27-billion-parameter model reads it and decides, a 12-billion-parameter model from a different family decides again, a 32-billion-parameter mixture-of-experts model breaks the tie if there is one, the system labels the majority a recommendation — and then a script checks every quotation the models leaned on, and strikes any determination resting on words that are not in the source.

Act III begins where Acts I and II stop: not with whether words exist, but with what those verified words will bear.

WHY PARAPHRASE VERIFICATION IS HARD

Text has a stopping rule. Meaning does not.

ACTS I & II · VERBATIM QUOTE

“Are these characters in the source?”

RULES
Bounded · defined · thoughtful
METHOD
Resolve · audit · compare

A script settles it.The characters are there or they are not. No reader’s opinion is needed.

ACT III · PARAPHRASE

“Does this source support the contention?”

CODE CAN
Find parallel assertions · verify every relied-on quote
CODE CANNOT
Settle meaning · measure legal reach

A council completes the question.Independent expert readers develop advice for the writer and reviewer. They do not rule.

DETERMINISTIC PRE-CHECKSCRIPT · FINDS LANGUAGE
ADVISORY COUNCILREADERS · DEVELOP OPINIONS
DETERMINISTIC FINAL GATESCRIPT · CHECKS THEIR BASIS
SCRIPTS GATEMODELS ADVISE

Olympus uses deterministic code as far as it goes, draws the boundary, and records the human-reviewable advice beyond it.

Identifying every paraphrase, resolving its source and laying the text beside it are shipping behavior. The three-reader panel is in build, shown here as the design will run — labelled so, because that is how we label things.

MACRO · READ IT

SAMPLE — REPLY MEMORANDUM · POINT III

Cardozo measured the duty owed by the risk a reasonably prudent eye would have perceived (Palsgraf, 248 NY at 344). Meinhard holds that business partners owe one another the duty of finest loyalty in all their dealings. Palsgraf permits recovery for purely emotional injury to bystanders. Riggs v Palmer establishes that a court may disregard the plain text of a statute whenever enforcing it would be inequitable.

Run the panel

MICRO · WORK IT

Cardozo measured the duty owed by the risk a reasonably prudent eye would have perceived (Palsgraf, 248 NY at 344). Meinhard holds that business partners owe one another the duty of finest loyalty in all their dealings. Palsgraf permits recovery for purely emotional injury to bystanders. Riggs v Palmer establishes that a court may disregard the plain text of a statute whenever enforcing it would be inequitable.

PARAPHRASE 1 OF 4CONFIRMED

Cardozo measured the duty owed by the risk a reasonably prudent eye would have perceived (Palsgraf, 248 NY at 344).

Palsgraf v Long Is. R.R. Co., 248 NY 339 [1928]

AS DRAFTEDPARAPHRASE 1 · STEP 1 OF 6
Cardozo measured the duty owed by the risk a reasonably prudent eye would have perceived (Palsgraf, 248 NY at 344).
STEP 1 · SCRIPT
resolve   Palsgraf, 248 NY at 344 ..... found
audit     served span ................. clean
extract   claim terms ................. duty · risk · reasonably prudent · perceive
search    lexical + span retrieval .... candidate spans returned
rank      best candidate .............. p 344
halt      similarity is not support — no determination made

NONE — a script can find language; it cannot decide whether language supports a claim

AS DRAFTEDPARAPHRASE 1 · STEP 2 OF 6
Cardozo measured the duty owed by the risk a reasonably prudent eye would have perceived (Palsgraf, 248 NY at 344).
READER ONE — THINKING

The draft restates the relation the sentence states: the measure of the duty is the risk a reasonable observer would have perceived. It adds no element the sentence does not contain — no proximity requirement, no causation rule — and it drops none.

WHAT WOULD CHANGE THIS

If the draft had said the duty is measured by the harm that in fact occurred, the span would not support it.

DETERMINATIONSUPPORTED

AS DRAFTEDPARAPHRASE 1 · STEP 3 OF 6
Cardozo measured the duty owed by the risk a reasonably prudent eye would have perceived (Palsgraf, 248 NY at 344).
READER TWO — THINKING

This sentence carries the same relational rule from the other side: negligence has no meaning except toward a person to whom a duty runs. A restatement in terms of perceived risk sits inside that rule rather than beyond it.

WHAT WOULD CHANGE THIS

A span limiting the holding to the facts of the platform scales would narrow it below the draft’s statement.

DETERMINATIONSUPPORTED

SPAN RELIED ONPalsgraf, 248 NY at 341
Negligence in the abstract, apart from things related, is surely not a tort, if indeed it is understandable at all.

Palsgraf, 248 NY at 341

Open this span in the packet →
AS DRAFTEDPARAPHRASE 1 · STEP 4 OF 6
Cardozo measured the duty owed by the risk a reasonably prudent eye would have perceived (Palsgraf, 248 NY at 344).
STEP 4 · TIEBREAK

Not called. The readers agreed, independently, and a tiebreak exists to resolve disagreement — not to add a third voice to a chorus. That it stayed shut is itself recorded.

NOT CALLED — recorded as not called

AS DRAFTEDPARAPHRASE 1 · STEP 5 OF 6
Cardozo measured the duty owed by the risk a reasonably prudent eye would have perceived (Palsgraf, 248 NY at 344).
STEP 5 · SYSTEM
tally     supported ............ 2
tally     not supported ........ 0
record    model recommendation . SUPPORTED

The model majority is advisory, recorded and not a verdict (R-5).

ADVISORY — RECORDED, NOT LOAD-BEARING (R-5)

AS DRAFTEDPARAPHRASE 1 · STEP 6 OF 6
Cardozo measured the duty owed by the risk a reasonably prudent eye would have perceived (Palsgraf, 248 NY at 344).
STEP 6 · SCRIPT
verify    reader one span ..... verbatim at 248 NY 344   ✓
verify    reader two span ..... verbatim at 248 NY 341   ✓
re-tally  determinations on verbatim spans ... 2 of 2
adopt     recommendation stands — recorded as advisory
issue     packet verdict ...... CONFIRMED
VERDICT AS FILEDCONFIRMED

Both readers quoted the opinion to justify themselves, and both quotations are in the opinion — checked character-for-character, at the page named. Two readings, two verified spans, one verdict. The packet prints both spans so counsel can read them without leaving the page.

SPAN RELIED ON
READER ONE · SPAN VERIFIED IN THE SOURCE
The risk reasonably to be perceived defines the duty to be obeyed.

Palsgraf, 248 NY at 344

Open this span in the packet →
READER TWO · SPAN VERIFIED IN THE SOURCE
Negligence in the abstract, apart from things related, is surely not a tort, if indeed it is understandable at all.

Palsgraf, 248 NY at 341

Open this span in the packet →
STEP 1SCRIPT

Deterministic pre-check: find parallel assertions in the source

DETERMINISTIC PRE-CHECK · SCRIPT

Deterministic code takes the assertion this paraphrase is meant to support, resolves and audits the source, extracts the claim terms, and searches that source for parallel language. It can issue a retrieval-based accuracy signal; it cannot determine what the source means.

resolve   Palsgraf, 248 NY at 344 ..... found
audit     served span ................. clean
extract   claim terms ................. duty · risk · reasonably prudent · perceive
search    lexical + span retrieval .... candidate spans returned
rank      best candidate .............. p 344
halt      similarity is not support — no determination made

3 CANDIDATE SPANS · SOURCE WORDS, RANKED

1
“The risk reasonably to be perceived defines the duty to be obeyed.”
248 NY at 344
2
“Negligence in the abstract, apart from things related, is surely not a tort, if indeed it is understandable at all.”
248 NY at 341
3
“Proof of negligence in the air, so to speak, will not do.”
248 NY at 341
PRE-CHECK ADVICELIKELY ACCURATEParallel source language was found. Treat this as a reason to read, never as a determination.
DETERMINATIONNONE — this signal is advisory; a script can find language, but it cannot decide whether language supports a claim
STEP 2MODEL · 27B DENSE

READER ONE

27B-PARAMETER DENSE MODEL

Reads the paraphrase, the candidate spans and the full opinion. It is never shown the prompt that produced the draft (R-6), and never shown the other readers.

READER WORK · 3 STAGES
1 · LOCATE LANGUAGE IN THE OPINIONCANDIDATE LANGUAGE

Candidate 1 — the sentence the citation points at.

2 · SELECT THE MATERIAL SPAN
The risk reasonably to be perceived defines the duty to be obeyed.
Palsgraf, 248 NY at 344
3 · BUILD THE READING ON THAT SPANREADING

The draft restates the relation the sentence states: the measure of the duty is the risk a reasonable observer would have perceived. It adds no element the sentence does not contain — no proximity requirement, no causation rule — and it drops none.

WHAT WOULD CHANGE THIS

If the draft had said the duty is measured by the harm that in fact occurred, the span would not support it.

DETERMINATIONSUPPORTED
STEP 3MODEL · 12B DENSE

READER TWO

12B-PARAMETER DENSE MODEL

A different model family, trained on different data, prompted independently — so that two readers do not fail the same way at the same time. It is not told what Reader One said.

READER WORK · 3 STAGES
1 · LOCATE LANGUAGE IN THE OPINIONCANDIDATE LANGUAGE

Candidate 2 — reached independently; not the span the draft cites.

3 · BUILD THE READING ON THAT SPANREADING

This sentence carries the same relational rule from the other side: negligence has no meaning except toward a person to whom a duty runs. A restatement in terms of perceived risk sits inside that rule rather than beyond it.

WHAT WOULD CHANGE THIS

A span limiting the holding to the facts of the platform scales would narrow it below the draft’s statement.

DETERMINATIONSUPPORTED
STEP 4MODEL · 32B MoE

The tiebreak reader, called only on a split

READER ONESUPPORTEDREADER TWOSUPPORTED
READERS AGREE?YES — AGREEMENT
NO SPLITBYPASS TIEBREAKroute taken
SPLITCALL 32B MoEroute not taken

Not called. The readers agreed, independently, and a tiebreak exists to resolve disagreement — not to add a third voice to a chorus. That it stayed shut is itself recorded.

32B MoE SEAT HELD CLOSED

Agreement bypasses this seat. Its absence is recorded.

DETERMINATIONNOT CALLED — recorded as not called
STEP 5SYSTEM

The majority is labelled a recommendation

READER ONESUPPORTEDREADER TWOSUPPORTED
SYSTEM COUNTS · SYSTEM DOES NOT DECIDE
MODEL RECOMMENDATIONSUPPORTED

2OF 2 SEATS

SUPPORTED · 2NOT SUPPORTED · 0

The model majority is advisory, recorded and not a verdict (R-5).

STATUSADVISORY — RECORDED, NOT LOAD-BEARING (R-5)
STEP 6SCRIPT

The final gate checks the work against the text

Each reader must quote the span it relied on. The gate checks every quotation verbatim and strikes missing spans before the verdict is written.

READER ONESUPPORTEDSPAN VERIFIED IN THE SOURCE
READER TWOSUPPORTEDSPAN VERIFIED IN THE SOURCE
VERBATIM GATE · SCRIPT
VERBATIM BASISREADER ONESUPPORTEDREADER TWOSUPPORTED
NO SPANNO SEAT IN THIS STATE
REMOVED FROM TALLYNO DETERMINATION STRUCK
RE-TALLY AFTER QUOTATION GATE2 OF 2 SEATS ON VERBATIM SPANS
SUPPORTED · 2NOT SUPPORTED · 0

Both readers quoted the opinion to justify themselves, and both quotations are in the opinion — checked character-for-character, at the page named. Two readings, two verified spans, one verdict. The packet prints both spans so counsel can read them without leaving the page.

VERDICT AS FILEDCONFIRMED

The paraphrase sits inside language this system verified in Act I, and every determination behind that finding rests on text the gate found in the source.

END-STATE EVIDENCE INDEX · PARAPHRASE 1
The claim, every reader, and the source text under each opinion
↩ Paraphrase in the draft
PARAPHRASE IN THE DOCUMENT

Cardozo measured the duty owed by the risk a reasonably prudent eye would have perceived (Palsgraf, 248 NY at 344).

CONFIRMED
P1·D1 · FIRST DETERMINISTIC PULLLIKELY ACCURATE
“The risk reasonably to be perceived defines the duty to be obeyed.”

248 NY at 344

Open the confirmed source passage ↓
Cross-index
  1. P1·D1DETERMINISTIC PRE-CHECK
    ADVICE / DETERMINATIONLIKELY ACCURATE
  2. P1·R1READER ONE · 27B-PARAMETER DENSE MODEL
    ADVICE / DETERMINATIONSUPPORTED
  3. P1·R2READER TWO · 12B-PARAMETER DENSE MODEL
    ADVICE / DETERMINATIONSUPPORTED
  4. P1·R3TIEBREAK READER · 32B-PARAMETER MIXTURE-OF-EXPERTS MODEL
    ADVICE / DETERMINATIONNOT CALLED
    MATERIAL BASISNO MATERIAL BASIS — SEAT NOT CALLED
Confirmed passages in the source
P1·R2VERBATIM GATE · PRESENCE CONFIRMED
Negligence in the abstract, apart from things related, is surely not a tort, if indeed it is understandable at all.

Palsgraf, 248 NY at 341

PARAPHRASE 2 OF 4OVERSTATED

Meinhard holds that business partners owe one another the duty of finest loyalty in all their dealings.

Meinhard v Salmon, 249 NY 458 [1928]

AS DRAFTEDPARAPHRASE 2 · STEP 1 OF 6
Meinhard holds that business partners owe one another the duty of finest loyalty in all their dealings.
STEP 1 · SCRIPT
resolve   Meinhard, 249 NY at 464 ..... found
audit     served span ................. clean
extract   claim terms ................. business partners · finest loyalty · all dealings
search    lexical + span retrieval .... candidate spans returned
rank      best candidate .............. p 463
flag      claim term “all dealings” ... no candidate contains it
halt      similarity is not support — no determination made

NONE — a script can find language; it cannot decide whether language supports a claim

SPAN RELIED ON249 NY at 463
“Joint adventurers, like copartners, owe to one another, while the enterprise continues, the duty of the finest loyalty.”

249 NY at 463

Open this span in the packet →
AS DRAFTEDPARAPHRASE 2 · STEP 2 OF 6
Meinhard holds that business partners owe one another the duty of finest loyalty in all their dealings.
READER ONE — THINKING

The sentence names copartners and states the duty of the finest loyalty in those words. The draft says business partners owe one another the duty of finest loyalty. Read as a summary of the standard, it tracks the sentence closely.

WHAT WOULD CHANGE THIS

If the opinion elsewhere confined the duty to a narrower class than the sentence names, the summary would overstate it.

DETERMINATIONSUPPORTED

SPAN RELIED ONMeinhard, 249 NY at 463
Joint adventurers, like copartners, owe to one another, while the enterprise continues, the duty of the finest loyalty.

Meinhard, 249 NY at 463

Open this span in the packet →
AS DRAFTEDPARAPHRASE 2 · STEP 3 OF 6
Meinhard holds that business partners owe one another the duty of finest loyalty in all their dealings.
READER TWO — THINKING

The sentence carries two limits the draft drops. The duty runs between joint adventurers and copartners in a common enterprise, and it runs while the enterprise continues. “Business partners” in “all their dealings” extends it past both limits, and no span in the opinion extends it that far.

WHAT WOULD CHANGE THIS

A span applying the duty outside the venture, or after it ends, would support the draft as written. There is none.

DETERMINATIONNOT SUPPORTED

SPAN RELIED ONMeinhard, 249 NY at 463
Joint adventurers, like copartners, owe to one another, while the enterprise continues, the duty of the finest loyalty.

Meinhard, 249 NY at 463

Open this span in the packet →
AS DRAFTEDPARAPHRASE 2 · STEP 4 OF 6
Meinhard holds that business partners owe one another the duty of finest loyalty in all their dealings.
TIEBREAK READER — THINKING

The word that governs this passage is “then”: the punctilio is the standard for those already bound by the relation the opinion has just described. The opinion states a stricter standard for co-adventurers; it does not state a rule for partners at large in all their dealings.

WHAT WOULD CHANGE THIS

Nothing in this opinion. A different authority might state the broader rule; this one does not.

DETERMINATIONNOT SUPPORTED

Called. The two readers split on the same sentence — which is the honest signal that this is a question about meaning, not about text. The third reader is handed the paraphrase and the source and told nothing else.

SPAN RELIED ONMeinhard, 249 NY at 464
Not honesty alone, but the punctilio of an honor the most sensitive, is then the standard of behavior.

Meinhard, 249 NY at 464

Open this span in the packet →
AS DRAFTEDPARAPHRASE 2 · STEP 5 OF 6
Meinhard holds that business partners owe one another the duty of finest loyalty in all their dealings.
STEP 5 · SYSTEM
tally     supported ............ 1
tally     not supported ........ 2
record    model recommendation . NOT SUPPORTED

The model majority is advisory. The minority reading remains in the packet for counsel.

ADVISORY — RECORDED, NOT LOAD-BEARING (R-5)

AS DRAFTEDPARAPHRASE 2 · STEP 6 OF 6
Meinhard holds that business partners owe one another the duty of finest loyalty in all their dealings.
STEP 6 · SCRIPT
verify    reader one span ..... verbatim at 249 NY 463   ✓
verify    reader two span ..... verbatim at 249 NY 463   ✓
verify    tiebreak span ....... verbatim at 249 NY 464   ✓
re-tally  determinations on verbatim spans ... 3 of 3
adopt     recommendation stands — recorded as advisory
issue     packet verdict ...... OVERSTATED
VERDICT AS FILEDOVERSTATED

All three spans are in the opinion. The disagreement was never about what the text says — it was about how far the text reaches, which is exactly the class of question a script cannot settle and a packet must therefore show. The correction narrows the claim to what the verified spans support.

NEAREST SUPPORTED PARAPHRASE

“Meinhard holds co-adventurers to the punctilio of an honor the most sensitive while the enterprise continues — a standard stricter than the morals of the marketplace.”

Meinhard v Salmon, 249 NY 458, 463–464 [1928]
SPAN RELIED ON
READER ONE · SPAN VERIFIED IN THE SOURCE
Joint adventurers, like copartners, owe to one another, while the enterprise continues, the duty of the finest loyalty.

Meinhard, 249 NY at 463

Open this span in the packet →
READER TWO · SPAN VERIFIED IN THE SOURCE
Joint adventurers, like copartners, owe to one another, while the enterprise continues, the duty of the finest loyalty.

Meinhard, 249 NY at 463

Open this span in the packet →
TIEBREAK READER · SPAN VERIFIED IN THE SOURCE
Not honesty alone, but the punctilio of an honor the most sensitive, is then the standard of behavior.

Meinhard, 249 NY at 464

Open this span in the packet →
STEP 1SCRIPT

Deterministic pre-check: find parallel assertions in the source

DETERMINISTIC PRE-CHECK · SCRIPT

Deterministic code takes the assertion this paraphrase is meant to support, resolves and audits the source, extracts the claim terms, and searches that source for parallel language. It can issue a retrieval-based accuracy signal; it cannot determine what the source means.

resolve   Meinhard, 249 NY at 464 ..... found
audit     served span ................. clean
extract   claim terms ................. business partners · finest loyalty · all dealings
search    lexical + span retrieval .... candidate spans returned
rank      best candidate .............. p 463
flag      claim term “all dealings” ... no candidate contains it
halt      similarity is not support — no determination made

3 CANDIDATE SPANS · SOURCE WORDS, RANKED

1
“Joint adventurers, like copartners, owe to one another, while the enterprise continues, the duty of the finest loyalty.”
249 NY at 463
2
“Not honesty alone, but the punctilio of an honor the most sensitive, is then the standard of behavior.”
249 NY at 464
3
“Many forms of conduct permissible in a workaday world for those acting at arm’s length, are forbidden to those bound by fiduciary ties.”
249 NY at 464
PRE-CHECK ADVICELIKELY ACCURATEParallel source language was found. Treat this as a reason to read, never as a determination.
DETERMINATIONNONE — this signal is advisory; a script can find language, but it cannot decide whether language supports a claim
STEP 2MODEL · 27B DENSE

READER ONE

27B-PARAMETER DENSE MODEL

Reads the paraphrase, the candidate spans and the full opinion. It is never shown the prompt that produced the draft (R-6), and never shown the other readers.

READER WORK · 3 STAGES
1 · LOCATE LANGUAGE IN THE OPINIONCANDIDATE LANGUAGE

Candidate 1 — the sentence that states the duty.

3 · BUILD THE READING ON THAT SPANREADING

The sentence names copartners and states the duty of the finest loyalty in those words. The draft says business partners owe one another the duty of finest loyalty. Read as a summary of the standard, it tracks the sentence closely.

WHAT WOULD CHANGE THIS

If the opinion elsewhere confined the duty to a narrower class than the sentence names, the summary would overstate it.

DETERMINATIONSUPPORTED
STEP 3MODEL · 12B DENSE

READER TWO

12B-PARAMETER DENSE MODEL

A different model family, trained on different data, prompted independently — so that two readers do not fail the same way at the same time. It is not told what Reader One said.

READER WORK · 3 STAGES
1 · LOCATE LANGUAGE IN THE OPINIONCANDIDATE LANGUAGE

The same sentence as Reader One — reached independently, read differently.

3 · BUILD THE READING ON THAT SPANREADING

The sentence carries two limits the draft drops. The duty runs between joint adventurers and copartners in a common enterprise, and it runs while the enterprise continues. “Business partners” in “all their dealings” extends it past both limits, and no span in the opinion extends it that far.

WHAT WOULD CHANGE THIS

A span applying the duty outside the venture, or after it ends, would support the draft as written. There is none.

DETERMINATIONNOT SUPPORTED
STEP 4MODEL · 32B MoE

The tiebreak reader, called only on a split

READER ONESUPPORTEDREADER TWONOT SUPPORTED
READERS AGREE?NO — SPLIT
NO SPLITBYPASS TIEBREAKroute not taken
SPLITCALL 32B MoEroute taken

Called. The two readers split on the same sentence — which is the honest signal that this is a question about meaning, not about text. The third reader is handed the paraphrase and the source and told nothing else.

TIEBREAK READER32B-PARAMETER MIXTURE-OF-EXPERTS MODELREAD BLIND · DIFFERENT ARCHITECTURE

Called only on a split, and read blind: it is given the paraphrase and the source, and is told nothing about the disagreement, nor what either reader wrote.

READER WORK · 3 STAGES
1 · LOCATE LANGUAGE IN THE OPINIONCANDIDATE LANGUAGE

Candidate 2 — chosen without sight of either reader’s span or reasoning.

3 · BUILD THE READING ON THAT SPANREADING

The word that governs this passage is “then”: the punctilio is the standard for those already bound by the relation the opinion has just described. The opinion states a stricter standard for co-adventurers; it does not state a rule for partners at large in all their dealings.

WHAT WOULD CHANGE THIS

Nothing in this opinion. A different authority might state the broader rule; this one does not.

DETERMINATIONNOT SUPPORTED
STEP 5SYSTEM

The majority is labelled a recommendation

READER ONESUPPORTEDREADER TWONOT SUPPORTEDTIEBREAK READERNOT SUPPORTED
SYSTEM COUNTS · SYSTEM DOES NOT DECIDE
MODEL RECOMMENDATIONNOT SUPPORTED

2OF 3 SEATS

SUPPORTED · 1NOT SUPPORTED · 2

The model majority is advisory. The minority reading remains in the packet for counsel.

STATUSADVISORY — RECORDED, NOT LOAD-BEARING (R-5)
STEP 6SCRIPT

The final gate checks the work against the text

Each reader must quote the span it relied on. The gate checks every quotation verbatim and strikes missing spans before the verdict is written.

READER ONESUPPORTEDSPAN VERIFIED IN THE SOURCE
READER TWONOT SUPPORTEDSPAN VERIFIED IN THE SOURCE
TIEBREAK READERNOT SUPPORTEDSPAN VERIFIED IN THE SOURCE
VERBATIM GATE · SCRIPT
VERBATIM BASISREADER ONESUPPORTEDREADER TWONOT SUPPORTEDTIEBREAK READERNOT SUPPORTED
NO SPANNO SEAT IN THIS STATE
REMOVED FROM TALLYNO DETERMINATION STRUCK
RE-TALLY AFTER QUOTATION GATE3 OF 3 SEATS ON VERBATIM SPANS
SUPPORTED · 1NOT SUPPORTED · 2

All three spans are in the opinion. The disagreement was never about what the text says — it was about how far the text reaches, which is exactly the class of question a script cannot settle and a packet must therefore show. The correction narrows the claim to what the verified spans support.

VERDICT AS FILEDOVERSTATED
NEAREST SUPPORTED PARAPHRASE

“Meinhard holds co-adventurers to the punctilio of an honor the most sensitive while the enterprise continues — a standard stricter than the morals of the marketplace.”

Meinhard v Salmon, 249 NY 458, 463–464 [1928]

The case is right, the standard is right, the reach is wrong. The correction does the shopping (R-4, extended from text to meaning): the nearest paraphrase the verified spans will carry.

END-STATE EVIDENCE INDEX · PARAPHRASE 2
The claim, every reader, and the source text under each opinion
↩ Paraphrase in the draft
PARAPHRASE IN THE DOCUMENT

Meinhard holds that business partners owe one another the duty of finest loyalty in all their dealings.

OVERSTATED
P2·D1 · FIRST DETERMINISTIC PULLLIKELY ACCURATE
“Joint adventurers, like copartners, owe to one another, while the enterprise continues, the duty of the finest loyalty.”

249 NY at 463

Open the confirmed source passage ↓
Cross-index
  1. P2·D1DETERMINISTIC PRE-CHECK
    ADVICE / DETERMINATIONLIKELY ACCURATE
  2. P2·R1READER ONE · 27B-PARAMETER DENSE MODEL
    ADVICE / DETERMINATIONSUPPORTED
  3. P2·R2READER TWO · 12B-PARAMETER DENSE MODEL
    ADVICE / DETERMINATIONNOT SUPPORTED
  4. P2·R3TIEBREAK READER · 32B-PARAMETER MIXTURE-OF-EXPERTS MODEL
    ADVICE / DETERMINATIONNOT SUPPORTED
Confirmed passages in the source
P2·D1PULLED FROM SOURCE · PRESENCE CONFIRMED
“Joint adventurers, like copartners, owe to one another, while the enterprise continues, the duty of the finest loyalty.”

249 NY at 463

P2·R1VERBATIM GATE · PRESENCE CONFIRMED
Joint adventurers, like copartners, owe to one another, while the enterprise continues, the duty of the finest loyalty.

Meinhard, 249 NY at 463

P2·R2VERBATIM GATE · PRESENCE CONFIRMED
Joint adventurers, like copartners, owe to one another, while the enterprise continues, the duty of the finest loyalty.

Meinhard, 249 NY at 463

P2·R3VERBATIM GATE · PRESENCE CONFIRMED
Not honesty alone, but the punctilio of an honor the most sensitive, is then the standard of behavior.

Meinhard, 249 NY at 464

PARAPHRASE 3 OF 4UNSUPPORTED

Palsgraf permits recovery for purely emotional injury to bystanders.

Palsgraf v Long Is. R.R. Co., 248 NY 339 [1928]

AS DRAFTEDPARAPHRASE 3 · STEP 1 OF 6
Palsgraf permits recovery for purely emotional injury to bystanders.
STEP 1 · SCRIPT
resolve   Palsgraf, 248 NY 339 ........ found
audit     served span ................. clean
extract   claim terms ................. recovery · purely emotional injury · bystander
search    lexical + span retrieval .... weak candidates returned
flag      no candidate contains the claim’s operative terms
halt      low similarity is not a verdict — readers assigned

NONE — a script can find language; it cannot decide whether language supports a claim

AS DRAFTEDPARAPHRASE 3 · STEP 2 OF 6
Palsgraf permits recovery for purely emotional injury to bystanders.
READER ONE — THINKING

The opinion decides the case on duty and foreseeability and expressly sets causation aside. It reaches no question of emotional injury and permits no recovery to anyone; the plaintiff lost. The nearest text is returned so counsel can see how far it sits from the claim.

WHAT WOULD CHANGE THIS

A span addressing recovery for fright, shock or emotional harm. The opinion contains none.

DETERMINATIONNOT SUPPORTED

SPAN RELIED ONPalsgraf, 248 NY at 346
The law of causation, remote or proximate, is thus foreign to the case before us.

Palsgraf, 248 NY at 346

Open this span in the packet →
AS DRAFTEDPARAPHRASE 3 · STEP 3 OF 6
Palsgraf permits recovery for purely emotional injury to bystanders.
READER TWO — THINKING

There is no holding in this opinion about bystander emotional recovery, so there is no passage to quote for or against it. Reporting an absence with no span is the correct output; a nearest-neighbour span offered here would read as evidence and is not.

WHAT WOULD CHANGE THIS

Any span in this opinion that grants recovery of any kind. The plaintiff recovered nothing.

DETERMINATIONNOT SUPPORTED

SPAN RELIED ONno span returned — the reader reports the opinion contains none
NO SOURCE TO SET BESIDE IT — the reader returned no span.

no span returned — the reader reports the opinion contains none

Open this span in the packet →
AS DRAFTEDPARAPHRASE 3 · STEP 4 OF 6
Palsgraf permits recovery for purely emotional injury to bystanders.
STEP 4 · TIEBREAK

Not called. Both readers reached the same determination, from opposite directions — one by returning the nearest text and showing its distance, one by returning nothing at all.

NOT CALLED — recorded as not called

AS DRAFTEDPARAPHRASE 3 · STEP 5 OF 6
Palsgraf permits recovery for purely emotional injury to bystanders.
STEP 5 · SYSTEM
tally     supported ............ 0
tally     not supported ........ 2
record    model recommendation . NOT SUPPORTED

Agreement is not proof. The recommendation stays advisory; the final gate does not consult it.

ADVISORY — RECORDED, NOT LOAD-BEARING (R-5)

AS DRAFTEDPARAPHRASE 3 · STEP 6 OF 6
Palsgraf permits recovery for purely emotional injury to bystanders.
STEP 6 · SCRIPT
verify    reader one span ..... verbatim at 248 NY 346   ✓
verify    reader two span ..... NO SPAN RETURNED — nothing to verify
sweep     opinion text, closed .. no span states or permits the claim
re-tally  determinations on verbatim spans ... 1 of 2
issue     packet verdict ...... UNSUPPORTED
basis     the sweep, not the readers
VERDICT AS FILEDUNSUPPORTED

A reader that returns no span has returned no evidence, and the gate counts none. What carries this verdict is the script’s own sweep: an opinion is a closed document, it can be searched exhaustively, and the proposition is not in it. That is the same closed-world reasoning Act II applied to your record — and it is why this verdict is stated at proposition level, distinct from Act I’s citation-level fabricated.

SPAN RELIED ON
READER ONE · SPAN VERIFIED IN THE SOURCE
The law of causation, remote or proximate, is thus foreign to the case before us.

Palsgraf, 248 NY at 346

Open this span in the packet →
READER TWO · NO SPAN — NOTHING TO VERIFY
NO SOURCE TO SET BESIDE IT — the reader returned no span.

no span returned — the reader reports the opinion contains none

Open this span in the packet →
STEP 1SCRIPT

Deterministic pre-check: find parallel assertions in the source

DETERMINISTIC PRE-CHECK · SCRIPT

Deterministic code takes the assertion this paraphrase is meant to support, resolves and audits the source, extracts the claim terms, and searches that source for parallel language. It can issue a retrieval-based accuracy signal; it cannot determine what the source means.

resolve   Palsgraf, 248 NY 339 ........ found
audit     served span ................. clean
extract   claim terms ................. recovery · purely emotional injury · bystander
search    lexical + span retrieval .... weak candidates returned
flag      no candidate contains the claim’s operative terms
halt      low similarity is not a verdict — readers assigned

2 CANDIDATE SPANS · SOURCE WORDS, RANKED

1
“The law of causation, remote or proximate, is thus foreign to the case before us.”
248 NY at 346
2
“Negligence in the abstract, apart from things related, is surely not a tort, if indeed it is understandable at all.”
248 NY at 341
PRE-CHECK ADVICENO PARALLEL ASSERTION FOUNDNo parallel assertion cleared the retrieval check. The expert readers still examine the whole source.
DETERMINATIONNONE — this signal is advisory; a script can find language, but it cannot decide whether language supports a claim
STEP 2MODEL · 27B DENSE

READER ONE

27B-PARAMETER DENSE MODEL

Reads the paraphrase, the candidate spans and the full opinion. It is never shown the prompt that produced the draft (R-6), and never shown the other readers.

READER WORK · 3 STAGES
1 · LOCATE LANGUAGE IN THE OPINIONCANDIDATE LANGUAGE

Candidate 1 — the nearest on-point sentence, which is not close.

3 · BUILD THE READING ON THAT SPANREADING

The opinion decides the case on duty and foreseeability and expressly sets causation aside. It reaches no question of emotional injury and permits no recovery to anyone; the plaintiff lost. The nearest text is returned so counsel can see how far it sits from the claim.

WHAT WOULD CHANGE THIS

A span addressing recovery for fright, shock or emotional harm. The opinion contains none.

DETERMINATIONNOT SUPPORTED
STEP 3MODEL · 12B DENSE

READER TWO

12B-PARAMETER DENSE MODEL

A different model family, trained on different data, prompted independently — so that two readers do not fail the same way at the same time. It is not told what Reader One said.

READER WORK · 3 STAGES
1 · LOCATE LANGUAGE IN THE OPINIONCANDIDATE LANGUAGE

None. The reader searched the opinion and returned nothing rather than offering the closest thing it could find.

2 · SELECT THE MATERIAL SPAN

— nothing returned —

no span returned — the reader reports the opinion contains none
3 · BUILD THE READING ON THAT SPANREADING

There is no holding in this opinion about bystander emotional recovery, so there is no passage to quote for or against it. Reporting an absence with no span is the correct output; a nearest-neighbour span offered here would read as evidence and is not.

WHAT WOULD CHANGE THIS

Any span in this opinion that grants recovery of any kind. The plaintiff recovered nothing.

DETERMINATIONNOT SUPPORTED
STEP 4MODEL · 32B MoE

The tiebreak reader, called only on a split

READER ONENOT SUPPORTEDREADER TWONOT SUPPORTED
READERS AGREE?YES — AGREEMENT
NO SPLITBYPASS TIEBREAKroute taken
SPLITCALL 32B MoEroute not taken

Not called. Both readers reached the same determination, from opposite directions — one by returning the nearest text and showing its distance, one by returning nothing at all.

32B MoE SEAT HELD CLOSED

Agreement bypasses this seat. Its absence is recorded.

DETERMINATIONNOT CALLED — recorded as not called
STEP 5SYSTEM

The majority is labelled a recommendation

READER ONENOT SUPPORTEDREADER TWONOT SUPPORTED
SYSTEM COUNTS · SYSTEM DOES NOT DECIDE
MODEL RECOMMENDATIONNOT SUPPORTED

2OF 2 SEATS

SUPPORTED · 0NOT SUPPORTED · 2

Agreement is not proof. The recommendation stays advisory; the final gate does not consult it.

STATUSADVISORY — RECORDED, NOT LOAD-BEARING (R-5)
STEP 6SCRIPT

The final gate checks the work against the text

Each reader must quote the span it relied on. The gate checks every quotation verbatim and strikes missing spans before the verdict is written.

READER ONENOT SUPPORTEDSPAN VERIFIED IN THE SOURCE
READER TWONOT SUPPORTEDNO SPAN — NOTHING TO VERIFY
VERBATIM GATE · SCRIPT
VERBATIM BASISREADER ONENOT SUPPORTED
NO SPANREADER TWONOTHING TO VERIFY
REMOVED FROM TALLYNO DETERMINATION STRUCK
RE-TALLY AFTER QUOTATION GATE1 OF 2 SEATS ON VERBATIM SPANS
SUPPORTED · 0NOT SUPPORTED · 1

A reader that returns no span has returned no evidence, and the gate counts none. What carries this verdict is the script’s own sweep: an opinion is a closed document, it can be searched exhaustively, and the proposition is not in it. That is the same closed-world reasoning Act II applied to your record — and it is why this verdict is stated at proposition level, distinct from Act I’s citation-level fabricated.

VERDICT AS FILEDUNSUPPORTED

The case is real and correctly cited. The proposition attributed to it is not in it. That is a different failure from a fabricated citation, it is reported as a different failure, and the sentence goes back to counsel with the nearest text in the opinion attached.

END-STATE EVIDENCE INDEX · PARAPHRASE 3
The claim, every reader, and the source text under each opinion
↩ Paraphrase in the draft
PARAPHRASE IN THE DOCUMENT

Palsgraf permits recovery for purely emotional injury to bystanders.

UNSUPPORTED
P3·D1 · FIRST DETERMINISTIC PULLNO PARALLEL ASSERTION FOUND
“The law of causation, remote or proximate, is thus foreign to the case before us.”

248 NY at 346

Open the confirmed source passage ↓
Cross-index
  1. P3·D1DETERMINISTIC PRE-CHECK
    ADVICE / DETERMINATIONNO PARALLEL ASSERTION FOUND
  2. P3·R1READER ONE · 27B-PARAMETER DENSE MODEL
    ADVICE / DETERMINATIONNOT SUPPORTED
  3. P3·R2READER TWO · 12B-PARAMETER DENSE MODEL
    ADVICE / DETERMINATIONNOT SUPPORTED
    MATERIAL BASISNO SPAN — NOTHING TO VERIFY
  4. P3·R3TIEBREAK READER · 32B-PARAMETER MIXTURE-OF-EXPERTS MODEL
    ADVICE / DETERMINATIONNOT CALLED
    MATERIAL BASISNO MATERIAL BASIS — SEAT NOT CALLED
Confirmed passages in the source
P3·D1PULLED FROM SOURCE · PRESENCE CONFIRMED
“The law of causation, remote or proximate, is thus foreign to the case before us.”

248 NY at 346

P3·R1VERBATIM GATE · PRESENCE CONFIRMED
The law of causation, remote or proximate, is thus foreign to the case before us.

Palsgraf, 248 NY at 346

PARAPHRASE 4 OF 4OVERSTATED

Riggs v Palmer establishes that a court may disregard the plain text of a statute whenever enforcing it would be inequitable.

Riggs v Palmer, 115 NY 506 [1889]

AS DRAFTEDPARAPHRASE 4 · STEP 1 OF 6
Riggs v Palmer establishes that a court may disregard the plain text of a statute whenever enforcing it would be inequitable.
STEP 1 · SCRIPT
resolve   Riggs v Palmer, 115 NY 506 .. found
audit     served span ................. clean
extract   claim terms ................. disregard plain text · statute · whenever · inequitable
search    lexical + span retrieval .... candidate spans returned
rank      best candidate .............. p 511
flag      claim term “whenever” ....... no candidate supports an unlimited rule
halt      similarity is not support — no determination made

NONE — a script can find language; it cannot decide whether language supports a claim

SPAN RELIED ON115 NY at 511
“All laws as well as all contracts may be controlled in their operation and effect by general, fundamental maxims of the common law.”

115 NY at 511

Open this span in the packet →
AS DRAFTEDPARAPHRASE 4 · STEP 2 OF 6
Riggs v Palmer establishes that a court may disregard the plain text of a statute whenever enforcing it would be inequitable.
READER ONE — THINKING

On this sentence the opinion states a general equitable power to decline the literal operation of a statute where enforcement would produce injustice. The draft states that power in modern words.

WHAT WOULD CHANGE THIS

A span confining the principle to the facts of a murdering legatee.

DETERMINATIONSUPPORTED

SPAN RELIED ONRiggs, 115 NY at 511 — as quoted by the reader
NO SOURCE TO SET BESIDE IT — the quoted sentence is not in the opinion.

Riggs, 115 NY at 511 — as quoted by the reader

Open this span in the packet →
AS DRAFTEDPARAPHRASE 4 · STEP 3 OF 6
Riggs v Palmer establishes that a court may disregard the plain text of a statute whenever enforcing it would be inequitable.
READER TWO — THINKING

The opinion controls the statute of wills by a specific maxim in a specific case: a murderer may not take under the will of the person he killed. “Whenever enforcing it would be inequitable” is a general power the opinion never claims, and it is the word “whenever” that does the overstating.

WHAT WOULD CHANGE THIS

A span stating a general power to disregard statutes on equitable grounds. The nearest candidate speaks of control by fundamental maxims, which is narrower.

DETERMINATIONNOT SUPPORTED

SPAN RELIED ONRiggs, 115 NY at 511
No one shall be permitted to profit by his own fraud, or to take advantage of his own wrong, or to found any claim upon his own iniquity, or to acquire property by his own crime.

Riggs, 115 NY at 511

Open this span in the packet →
AS DRAFTEDPARAPHRASE 4 · STEP 4 OF 6
Riggs v Palmer establishes that a court may disregard the plain text of a statute whenever enforcing it would be inequitable.
TIEBREAK READER — THINKING

The court reads the statute as the legislature would have written it for this case, rather than setting the statute aside. That is a canon of construction applied to one situation, not a licence to disregard plain text whenever a result seems inequitable.

WHAT WOULD CHANGE THIS

A span in which the court sets the statute aside outright rather than construing it.

DETERMINATIONNOT SUPPORTED

Called, on the split between Reader One and Reader Two — and called before anyone has checked whether either reader’s quotation exists. Order matters here: the panel runs to completion, and the gate audits it afterwards.

SPAN RELIED ONRiggs, 115 NY at 509
It never could have been their intention that a donee who murdered the testator to make the will operative should have any benefit under it.

Riggs, 115 NY at 509

Open this span in the packet →
AS DRAFTEDPARAPHRASE 4 · STEP 5 OF 6
Riggs v Palmer establishes that a court may disregard the plain text of a statute whenever enforcing it would be inequitable.
STEP 5 · SYSTEM
tally     supported ............ 1
tally     not supported ........ 2
record    model recommendation . NOT SUPPORTED

Provisional: the readers’ majority, recorded on their say-so alone. The final gate follows.

ADVISORY — RECORDED, NOT LOAD-BEARING (R-5)

AS DRAFTEDPARAPHRASE 4 · STEP 6 OF 6
Riggs v Palmer establishes that a court may disregard the plain text of a statute whenever enforcing it would be inequitable.
STEP 6 · SCRIPT
verify    reader one span ..... NOT FOUND in the opinion — STRUCK
search    all reporters ....... span appears in no NY opinion
verify    reader two span ..... verbatim at 115 NY 511   ✓
verify    tiebreak span ....... verbatim at 115 NY 509   ✓
strike    reader one determination ... removed from the tally, recorded in the packet
re-tally  determinations on verbatim spans ... 2 of 3
issue     packet verdict ...... OVERSTATED
VERDICT AS FILEDOVERSTATED

Reader One supported the paraphrase and quoted the opinion to prove it. The quotation is not in the opinion — not at page 511, not anywhere in it, and not in any other opinion in the reports. The gate does not argue with the reasoning; it checks the text the reasoning stands on, finds nothing there, and strikes the determination. Had that struck determination carried the majority, no recommendation would have been recorded at all and the paraphrase would have returned to counsel unresolved. This is what “scripts gate, models advise” means on the day it costs something.

NEAREST SUPPORTED PARAPHRASE

“Riggs applies the maxim that no one may profit by his own wrong to deny a murderer the benefit of his victim’s will, construing the statute of wills as the legislature would have written it for that case.”

Riggs v Palmer, 115 NY 506, 509, 511 [1889]
SPAN RELIED ON
READER ONE · SPAN NOT FOUND — STRUCK
NO SOURCE TO SET BESIDE IT — the quoted sentence is not in the opinion.

Riggs, 115 NY at 511 — as quoted by the reader

Open this span in the packet →
READER TWO · SPAN VERIFIED IN THE SOURCE
No one shall be permitted to profit by his own fraud, or to take advantage of his own wrong, or to found any claim upon his own iniquity, or to acquire property by his own crime.

Riggs, 115 NY at 511

Open this span in the packet →
TIEBREAK READER · SPAN VERIFIED IN THE SOURCE
It never could have been their intention that a donee who murdered the testator to make the will operative should have any benefit under it.

Riggs, 115 NY at 509

Open this span in the packet →
STEP 1SCRIPT

Deterministic pre-check: find parallel assertions in the source

DETERMINISTIC PRE-CHECK · SCRIPT

Deterministic code takes the assertion this paraphrase is meant to support, resolves and audits the source, extracts the claim terms, and searches that source for parallel language. It can issue a retrieval-based accuracy signal; it cannot determine what the source means.

resolve   Riggs v Palmer, 115 NY 506 .. found
audit     served span ................. clean
extract   claim terms ................. disregard plain text · statute · whenever · inequitable
search    lexical + span retrieval .... candidate spans returned
rank      best candidate .............. p 511
flag      claim term “whenever” ....... no candidate supports an unlimited rule
halt      similarity is not support — no determination made

3 CANDIDATE SPANS · SOURCE WORDS, RANKED

1
“All laws as well as all contracts may be controlled in their operation and effect by general, fundamental maxims of the common law.”
115 NY at 511
2
“No one shall be permitted to profit by his own fraud, or to take advantage of his own wrong, or to found any claim upon his own iniquity, or to acquire property by his own crime.”
115 NY at 511
3
“It never could have been their intention that a donee who murdered the testator to make the will operative should have any benefit under it.”
115 NY at 509
PRE-CHECK ADVICELIKELY ACCURATEParallel source language was found. Treat this as a reason to read, never as a determination.
DETERMINATIONNONE — this signal is advisory; a script can find language, but it cannot decide whether language supports a claim
STEP 2MODEL · 27B DENSE

READER ONE

27B-PARAMETER DENSE MODEL

Reads the paraphrase, the candidate spans and the full opinion. It is never shown the prompt that produced the draft (R-6), and never shown the other readers.

READER WORK · 3 STAGES
1 · LOCATE LANGUAGE IN THE OPINIONCANDIDATE LANGUAGE

A sentence the reader reports finding at page 511.

2 · SELECT THE MATERIAL SPAN
A court of equity will not suffer the letter of a statute to work an injustice in a case its framers did not foresee.
Riggs, 115 NY at 511 — as quoted by the reader
3 · BUILD THE READING ON THAT SPANREADING

On this sentence the opinion states a general equitable power to decline the literal operation of a statute where enforcement would produce injustice. The draft states that power in modern words.

WHAT WOULD CHANGE THIS

A span confining the principle to the facts of a murdering legatee.

DETERMINATIONSUPPORTED
STEP 3MODEL · 12B DENSE

READER TWO

12B-PARAMETER DENSE MODEL

A different model family, trained on different data, prompted independently — so that two readers do not fail the same way at the same time. It is not told what Reader One said.

READER WORK · 3 STAGES
1 · LOCATE LANGUAGE IN THE OPINIONCANDIDATE LANGUAGE

Candidate 2 — the maxim the decision actually turns on.

3 · BUILD THE READING ON THAT SPANREADING

The opinion controls the statute of wills by a specific maxim in a specific case: a murderer may not take under the will of the person he killed. “Whenever enforcing it would be inequitable” is a general power the opinion never claims, and it is the word “whenever” that does the overstating.

WHAT WOULD CHANGE THIS

A span stating a general power to disregard statutes on equitable grounds. The nearest candidate speaks of control by fundamental maxims, which is narrower.

DETERMINATIONNOT SUPPORTED
STEP 4MODEL · 32B MoE

The tiebreak reader, called only on a split

READER ONESUPPORTEDREADER TWONOT SUPPORTED
READERS AGREE?NO — SPLIT
NO SPLITBYPASS TIEBREAKroute not taken
SPLITCALL 32B MoEroute taken

Called, on the split between Reader One and Reader Two — and called before anyone has checked whether either reader’s quotation exists. Order matters here: the panel runs to completion, and the gate audits it afterwards.

TIEBREAK READER32B-PARAMETER MIXTURE-OF-EXPERTS MODELREAD BLIND · DIFFERENT ARCHITECTURE

Called only on a split, and read blind: it is given the paraphrase and the source, and is told nothing about the disagreement, nor what either reader wrote.

READER WORK · 3 STAGES
1 · LOCATE LANGUAGE IN THE OPINIONCANDIDATE LANGUAGE

Candidate 3 — chosen blind, with no knowledge of the split.

3 · BUILD THE READING ON THAT SPANREADING

The court reads the statute as the legislature would have written it for this case, rather than setting the statute aside. That is a canon of construction applied to one situation, not a licence to disregard plain text whenever a result seems inequitable.

WHAT WOULD CHANGE THIS

A span in which the court sets the statute aside outright rather than construing it.

DETERMINATIONNOT SUPPORTED
STEP 5SYSTEM

The majority is labelled a recommendation

READER ONESUPPORTEDREADER TWONOT SUPPORTEDTIEBREAK READERNOT SUPPORTED
SYSTEM COUNTS · SYSTEM DOES NOT DECIDE
MODEL RECOMMENDATIONNOT SUPPORTED

2OF 3 SEATS

SUPPORTED · 1NOT SUPPORTED · 2

Provisional: the readers’ majority, recorded on their say-so alone. The final gate follows.

STATUSADVISORY — RECORDED, NOT LOAD-BEARING (R-5)
STEP 6SCRIPT

The final gate checks the work against the text

Each reader must quote the span it relied on. The gate checks every quotation verbatim and strikes missing spans before the verdict is written.

READER ONESUPPORTEDSPAN NOT FOUND — STRUCK
READER TWONOT SUPPORTEDSPAN VERIFIED IN THE SOURCE
TIEBREAK READERNOT SUPPORTEDSPAN VERIFIED IN THE SOURCE
VERBATIM GATE · SCRIPT
VERBATIM BASISREADER TWONOT SUPPORTEDTIEBREAK READERNOT SUPPORTED
NO SPANNO SEAT IN THIS STATE
REMOVED FROM TALLYREADER ONE · SUPPORTEDDETERMINATION STRUCK
RE-TALLY AFTER QUOTATION GATE2 OF 3 SEATS ON VERBATIM SPANS
SUPPORTED · 0NOT SUPPORTED · 2

Reader One supported the paraphrase and quoted the opinion to prove it. The quotation is not in the opinion — not at page 511, not anywhere in it, and not in any other opinion in the reports. The gate does not argue with the reasoning; it checks the text the reasoning stands on, finds nothing there, and strikes the determination. Had that struck determination carried the majority, no recommendation would have been recorded at all and the paraphrase would have returned to counsel unresolved. This is what “scripts gate, models advise” means on the day it costs something.

VERDICT AS FILEDOVERSTATED
NEAREST SUPPORTED PARAPHRASE

“Riggs applies the maxim that no one may profit by his own wrong to deny a murderer the benefit of his victim’s will, construing the statute of wills as the legislature would have written it for that case.”

Riggs v Palmer, 115 NY 506, 509, 511 [1889]

The maxim is real and the case is famous for it. The draft turns a maxim applied to a murdering legatee into a general power over statutes — and the packet records both the narrowing and the struck determination that argued against it.

END-STATE EVIDENCE INDEX · PARAPHRASE 4
The claim, every reader, and the source text under each opinion
↩ Paraphrase in the draft
PARAPHRASE IN THE DOCUMENT

Riggs v Palmer establishes that a court may disregard the plain text of a statute whenever enforcing it would be inequitable.

OVERSTATED
P4·D1 · FIRST DETERMINISTIC PULLLIKELY ACCURATE
“All laws as well as all contracts may be controlled in their operation and effect by general, fundamental maxims of the common law.”

115 NY at 511

Open the confirmed source passage ↓
Cross-index
  1. P4·D1DETERMINISTIC PRE-CHECK
    ADVICE / DETERMINATIONLIKELY ACCURATE
  2. P4·R1READER ONE · 27B-PARAMETER DENSE MODEL
    ADVICE / DETERMINATIONSUPPORTED
    MATERIAL BASISSPAN NOT FOUND — DETERMINATION STRUCKA court of equity will not suffer the letter of a statute to work an injustice in a case its framers did not foresee.Riggs, 115 NY at 511 — as quoted by the reader
  3. P4·R2READER TWO · 12B-PARAMETER DENSE MODEL
    ADVICE / DETERMINATIONNOT SUPPORTED
  4. P4·R3TIEBREAK READER · 32B-PARAMETER MIXTURE-OF-EXPERTS MODEL
    ADVICE / DETERMINATIONNOT SUPPORTED
Confirmed passages in the source
P4·D1PULLED FROM SOURCE · PRESENCE CONFIRMED
“All laws as well as all contracts may be controlled in their operation and effect by general, fundamental maxims of the common law.”

115 NY at 511

P4·R2VERBATIM GATE · PRESENCE CONFIRMED
No one shall be permitted to profit by his own fraud, or to take advantage of his own wrong, or to found any claim upon his own iniquity, or to acquire property by his own crime.

Riggs, 115 NY at 511

P4·R3VERBATIM GATE · PRESENCE CONFIRMED
It never could have been their intention that a donee who murdered the testator to make the will operative should have any benefit under it.

Riggs, 115 NY at 509

MACRO · SEE IT

SAMPLE — REPLY MEMORANDUM · POINT III

CONFIRMED OVERSTATED UNSUPPORTED OVERSTATED

CONFIRMED1
CHANGED2
REJECTED OR OTHERWISE DETERMINED1

confirmed 1 · overstated 2 · unsupported 1

The packet has always told you which sentences need your judgment. The panel is being built so each one arrives with two recorded opinions — and, where they split, a tiebreak — already attached. Two readers because one can be wrong. A third because two can split. A tally that is labelled a recommendation and never a verdict. And a script with the last word, because a model that quotes a sentence the opinion does not contain has not made an argument — it has made a mistake, and the gate exists to catch that mistake before it reaches a page with your name on it (R-5).

ACT IV — THE PACKET

Available

Every verdict above lands in one place: a verification packet a person reviews and signs. It is not a results screen, and it is longer than a results screen — because a finding without the source text beside it asks the reader to take the machine’s word for it. Here is the whole object, then its pages, turned one at a time.

THE PACKET, WHOLE

Not a results screen. A 17-page document that arrives with its own evidence: the draft annotated and tagged, every source annotated with the same tags over the matched text, an index with a column to initial, the limits printed before the findings, provenance with hashes, coverage without a percentage, and damaged spans exactly as extracted.

17 pages14 findings, each tagged7 annotated pages2 panel records0 documents you must open yourself
  1. PAGE 1Orientation

    How the marker works, then the full contents.

  2. PAGES 2–4Coverage and limits

    Counts without a percentage; refusals and exclusions before findings.

  3. PAGE 5Provenance

    Sources, hashes, integrity, repairs and exact span-seeking rules.

  4. PAGES 6–7Annotated draft

    Counsel’s own words, highlighted and tagged in place.

  5. PAGES 8–9Index and initials

    Every finding, verdict, offset and a column for human sign-off.

  6. PAGES 10–14Annotated evidence

    The same tags over source text, search trails and the damaged bytes as served.

  7. PAGES 15–17Panel record and sign-off

    Advisory records kept in full; a person reviews and signs last.

CHAPTER 1 OF 4

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

What this packet is, what it does not check, coverage without a percentage, the legend, provenance — and how a reviewer checks a finding without leaving the packet.

WHAT THIS OBJECT IS

A matched set: annotated draft, annotated sources, index, limits, provenance and sign-off. Coverage is stated in counts, never as a percentage.

WHAT IT DOES NOT CHECK

Page 3 names every exclusion before the findings, including legal relevance and anything outside the sources served to the pass.

HOW TO CHECK A FINDING WITHOUT LEAVING THIS PACKET

Find the marker on the draft, follow it to the annotated source carrying the same marker over the matched words, then initial its row in the index.

LEGEND AND PROVENANCE

Page 4 defines green, amber and red; page 5 names each source, hash, integrity state, repair record and span-seeking rule.

CHAPTER 2 OF 4

THE QUOTES

Each quoted finding beside its source, with every marker opening the matching occurrence in the annotated packet.

[V01]VERIFIED
AS DRAFTED

“The risk reasonably to be perceived defines the duty to be obeyed” (Palsgraf v Long Is. R.R. Co., 248 NY 339, 344 [1928])

AS FOUND IN THE SOURCE
The risk reasonably to be perceived defines the duty to be obeyed, and risk imports relation; it is risk to another or to others within the range of apprehension.

Palsgraf v Long Is. R.R. Co., 248 NY 339, 344 [1928]

Open this span in the packet →
[V02]VERIFIED · NORMALIZED
AS DRAFTED

“Not honesty alone, but the punctilio of an honor the most sensi­tive, is then the standard of behavior” (Meinhard v Salmon, 249 NY 458, 464 [1928])

AS FOUND IN THE SOURCE
Not honesty alone, but the punctilio of an honor the most sensitive, is then the standard of behavior. Uncompromising rigidity has been the attitude of courts of equity.

Meinhard v Salmon, 249 NY 458, 464 [1928]

Open this span in the packet →
[V03]CORRECTED
AS DRAFTED

“is then a thing of imminent danger” (MacPherson v Buick Motor Co., 217 NY 382 [1916])

AS FOUND IN THE SOURCE
If the nature of a thing is such that it is reasonably certain to place life and limb in peril when negligently made, it is then a thing of danger. Its nature gives warning of the consequence to be expected.

MacPherson v Buick Motor Co., 217 NY 382, 389 [1916]

Open this span in the packet →
[V04]UNVERIFIED
AS DRAFTED

Matter of Haney v Ulster Cty. Bd. of Elections (Sup Ct, Ulster County, index No. EF2024-1189, May 14, 2024)

AS FOUND IN THE SOURCE
NO SOURCE TO SET BESIDE IT — the search trail is below.
[V05]FABRICATED
AS DRAFTED

Tillbury v Ardsley Terrace Assoc., 84 NY2d 913 [1994] (“a landlord’s constructive notice may be presumed from the mere passage of time”)

AS FOUND IN THE SOURCE
MEMORANDUM. The order of the Appellate Division in each case should be affirmed. Defendant Janoff, an attorney, seeks to overturn his convictions for insurance fraud and attempted petit larceny, and codefendant Aksoy seeks to overturn her convictions for the same crimes as well as for scheme to defraud in connection with defendant Janoff's filing of over 15 fraudulent personal injury claims on behalf of Aksoy and her infant son against various insurers over a 10-year period.

People v Aksoy, 84 NY2d 912, 913 [1994]

Open this span in the packet →
[V06]REFUSED · RECORD DAMAGED
AS DRAFTED

“No one shall be permitted to profit by his own fraud, or to take advantage of his own wrong” (Riggs v Palmer, 115 NY 506, 511 [1889])

AS FOUND IN THE SOURCE
…no one shall be permitted to pro t by his own fra ud, or to take adv nt- age of his own wrong, or to found any claim upon his own iniq uity…

Riggs v Palmer, 115 NY 506, 511 [1889] · damaged reporter extraction

Open this span in the packet →
[V07]VERIFIED
AS DRAFTED

“the boiler had been out of service since at least the first week of January” (Tr. 141:7–12)

AS FOUND IN THE SOURCE
141:7 Q. And before the notice, what was the state of the boiler? 141:9 A. the boiler had been out of service since at least the first week of January — I know because I logged it.

Deposition transcript · Tr. 141:7–12; matched at 141:9–10

Open this span in the packet →
[V08]CORRECTED
AS DRAFTED

A true copy of the lease, dated March 1, 2019, is annexed as Exhibit C

AS FOUND IN THE SOURCE
27 Feb 2019 — execution — signature block, above the acknowledgment. 1 Mar 2019 — commencement of term — habendum: “to have and to hold for a term commencing…”

Instrument index · Exhibit C, dates as endorsed

Open this span in the packet →
[V09]REFUSED · RECORD DAMAGED
AS DRAFTED

(Rivera Aff. ¶ 14)

AS FOUND IN THE SOURCE
14. The supe intendent states that he at ended to the boi er on…

Rivera affidavit ¶ 14 · damaged scan extraction

Open this span in the packet →
[V10]NOT IN RECORD
AS DRAFTED

annexed as Exhibit F

AS FOUND IN THE SOURCE
A — notice of termination B — certified mail receipt C — lease D — ledger extract E — correspondence, Jan–Mar

Exhibit index · complete as served

Open this span in the packet →

ONE MARKER · THREE PLACES · EVERY DIRECTION

The tag is the cross-reference.

Operate one finding at document scale. The eye moves out to the whole packet, back into the draft, down to the tagged words, and finally beside the source passage that proves them.

STATIC PRESENTATION

Motion is removed. The complete marker relationship and side-by-side confirmation are shown below.

ANNOTATED DRAFT · PAGE 6[V01]
“The risk reasonably to be perceived defines the duty to be obeyed” (Palsgraf v Long Is. R.R. Co., 248 NY 339, 344 [1928])
Words as counsel wrote them
INDEX · PAGE 8[V01]
VERIFIED

chars [12,004, 12,062) · exact

SEEN
ANNOTATED SOURCE · PAGE 10[V01]
…The risk reasonably to be perceived defines the duty to be obeyed, and risk imports relation…
Palsgraf, 248 NY 339, 344 · reporter text
Electronic or printed, the method is the same.On screen, the markers are links. On paper, the same tags and the initialled index carry the route.
CHAPTER 3 OF 4

THE PARAPHRASES

Each reader’s respective determination and source span, the collective recommendation, and the struck determination preserved in full.

[V11]
PARAPHRASE 1

Cardozo measured the duty owed by the risk a reasonably prudent eye would have perceived (Palsgraf, 248 NY at 344).

CONFIRMED
READER ONESUPPORTED
The risk reasonably to be perceived defines the duty to be obeyed.

Palsgraf, 248 NY at 344

Open this span in the packet →
READER TWOSUPPORTED
Negligence in the abstract, apart from things related, is surely not a tort, if indeed it is understandable at all.

Palsgraf, 248 NY at 341

Open this span in the packet →
COLLECTIVE MODEL RECOMMENDATIONSUPPORTED

The model majority is advisory, recorded and not a verdict (R-5).

[V12]
PARAPHRASE 2

Meinhard holds that business partners owe one another the duty of finest loyalty in all their dealings.

OVERSTATED
READER ONESUPPORTED
Joint adventurers, like copartners, owe to one another, while the enterprise continues, the duty of the finest loyalty.

Meinhard, 249 NY at 463

Open this span in the packet →
READER TWONOT SUPPORTED
Joint adventurers, like copartners, owe to one another, while the enterprise continues, the duty of the finest loyalty.

Meinhard, 249 NY at 463

Open this span in the packet →
TIEBREAK READERNOT SUPPORTED
Not honesty alone, but the punctilio of an honor the most sensitive, is then the standard of behavior.

Meinhard, 249 NY at 464

Open this span in the packet →
COLLECTIVE MODEL RECOMMENDATIONNOT SUPPORTED

The model majority is advisory. The minority reading remains in the packet for counsel.

[V13]
PARAPHRASE 3

Palsgraf permits recovery for purely emotional injury to bystanders.

UNSUPPORTED
READER ONENOT SUPPORTED
The law of causation, remote or proximate, is thus foreign to the case before us.

Palsgraf, 248 NY at 346

Open this span in the packet →
READER TWONOT SUPPORTED
NO SOURCE TO SET BESIDE IT — the reader returned no span.

no span returned — the reader reports the opinion contains none

Open this span in the packet →
COLLECTIVE MODEL RECOMMENDATIONNOT SUPPORTED

Agreement is not proof. The recommendation stays advisory; the final gate does not consult it.

[V14]
PARAPHRASE 4

Riggs v Palmer establishes that a court may disregard the plain text of a statute whenever enforcing it would be inequitable.

OVERSTATED
READER ONESUPPORTED
A court of equity will not suffer the letter of a statute to work an injustice in a case its framers did not foresee.

On this sentence the opinion states a general equitable power to decline the literal operation of a statute where enforcement would produce injustice. The draft states that power in modern words.

SPAN NOT FOUND — DETERMINATION STRUCKOpen this span in the packet →
READER TWONOT SUPPORTED
No one shall be permitted to profit by his own fraud, or to take advantage of his own wrong, or to found any claim upon his own iniquity, or to acquire property by his own crime.

Riggs, 115 NY at 511

Open this span in the packet →
TIEBREAK READERNOT SUPPORTED
It never could have been their intention that a donee who murdered the testator to make the will operative should have any benefit under it.

Riggs, 115 NY at 509

Open this span in the packet →
COLLECTIVE MODEL RECOMMENDATIONNOT SUPPORTED

Provisional: the readers’ majority, recorded on their say-so alone. The final gate follows.

CHAPTER 4 OF 4

CONCLUSIONS AND CHANGES

The index with its sign-off column, the changes and tightening returned to counsel, and the person who signs last.

INDEX · SIGN-OFF

Pages 8–9 put every marker, verdict, source location and a box to initial on one line. Page 17 reserves the final adoption for counsel.

RECOMMENDED CHANGES AND TIGHTENING

NEAREST KNOWN-GOOD

“If the nature of a thing is such that it is reasonably certain to place life and limb in peril when negligently made, it is then a thing of danger.”

MacPherson v Buick Motor Co., 217 NY 382, 389 [1916]
NEAREST KNOWN-GOOD

“…the lease executed February 27, 2019 and commencing March 1, 2019, annexed as Exhibit C.”

Instrument index · Exhibit C, dates as endorsed
NEAREST SUPPORTED PARAPHRASE

“Meinhard holds co-adventurers to the punctilio of an honor the most sensitive while the enterprise continues — a standard stricter than the morals of the marketplace.”

Meinhard v Salmon, 249 NY 458, 463–464 [1928]
NEAREST SUPPORTED PARAPHRASE

“Riggs applies the maxim that no one may profit by his own wrong to deny a murderer the benefit of his victim’s will, construing the statute of wills as the legislature would have written it for that case.”

Riggs v Palmer, 115 NY 506, 509, 511 [1889]
Every finding above was confirmed without opening another document. The draft is here, annotated. Every source is here, annotated over the matched text with the same tag. The index is here, with a column to initial. A reviewer works down one object — on screen or on paper — and signs it. That is the whole point: the verification is as portable as the draft, and a person, not a machine, is the one who signs.
VERIFICATION PACKETSAMPLE MATTER · REPLY MEMORANDUM & SUPPORTING AFFIRMATIONPAGE 1 OF 17

OLYMPUS LEGAL SYSTEMS · VERIFIER

Verification Packet

SAMPLE MATTER · REPLY MEMORANDUM & SUPPORTING AFFIRMATION

PASS

PassPASS 7C-4192
Generated26 August 2026 · 14:41 local
Ran onfirm hardware — no document left the building
EngineOLS Verifier · citation gate v4.2 · record gate v2.9 · paraphrase panel (in build) v0.6

HOW TO CHECK A FINDING WITHOUT LEAVING THIS PACKET

Every quotation and every claim checked in this pass carries a marker — [V01] through [V14]. The same marker appears three times, and nowhere else:

  • On the annotated draft (pages 6–7), beside the words as counsel wrote them, highlighted in the colour of the finding.
  • On the annotated source (pages 10–14), beside the exact passage in the transcript, exhibit or reporter text the words were checked against — highlighted over the matched span, not the page.
  • In the index (pages 8–9), on one row with the verdict, the offsets, and a box to initial when you have matched the two by eye.

That is the whole method. Find the marker on the draft, turn to the page it names, and the highlighted source text is waiting under the same marker. Nothing asks you to open a database, a browser tab, or a document this packet did not bring with it. Every marker in this packet is live: follow one and it lands on its highlighted span.

CONTENTS

PASS 7C-4192 · OLS Verifier · citation gate v4.2 · record gate v2.9 · paraphrase panel (in build) v0.61
VERIFICATION PACKETSAMPLE MATTER · REPLY MEMORANDUM & SUPPORTING AFFIRMATIONPAGE 2 OF 17

Coverage and counts

EXAMINED

14quotations and propositions examined
4clean
4corrections offered
3findings of non-existence
3declined to certify
2short fragments NOT examined

COUNTS BY VERDICT

VERIFIED2
VERIFIED · NORMALIZED1
CORRECTED2
UNVERIFIED1
FABRICATED1
REFUSED · RECORD DAMAGED2
NOT IN RECORD1
CONFIRMED1
OVERSTATED2
UNSUPPORTED1

HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

14 items were examined. 2 short fragments were not, and are named on page 3. This packet reports no percentage and no score — both invite a reader to infer coverage the packet has not claimed. It reports which items were checked, which were not, and what was found.

“Clean” counts 4: the quotations and paraphrases whose source basis cleared the gate. The other 10 are not 10 accusations. 3 of them are this packet declining to speak.

PASS 7C-4192 · OLS Verifier · citation gate v4.2 · record gate v2.9 · paraphrase panel (in build) v0.62
VERIFICATION PACKETSAMPLE MATTER · REPLY MEMORANDUM & SUPPORTING AFFIRMATIONPAGE 3 OF 17

What this packet does not check

OUT OF SCOPE FOR THIS PASS

  • Statutory text quoted in a statutory context. A statute is not in your record, and checking it against the record would accuse counsel of inventing text they quoted correctly. It is named, not graded.
  • 2 quotations that span a line break. The quotation scanner does not cross line breaks, by design, so that a page mark is never swallowed into a quotation. Each is named here and none is verified or impeached: reply memorandum ¶ 12 · block quote · 61 words; affirmation ¶ 9 · 44 words. Counsel must check them by hand.
  • 2 quoted fragments under three words. Counted, not examined.
  • Anything outside the sources named on page 5. If a document was not served to this pass, this pass says nothing about it.
  • Whether a verified quotation supports the argument it is cited for. Verbatim-in-source is necessary and never sufficient (R-7); relevance is a separate stage.
  • The characterization in a paraphrase, on any model’s say-so alone. The panel records on pages 15–16 show reasoned opinions and the gate’s audit of them. The panel is in build, and every page it touches says so.

WHY THIS PAGE SITS BEFORE THE FINDINGS

Every item above is something this packet declines to say, and none of them is a pass. A reader who takes the index for the whole of what needed checking has been misled by the index — and the only cure is to print the limits first, where they cannot be missed.

PASS 7C-4192 · OLS Verifier · citation gate v4.2 · record gate v2.9 · paraphrase panel (in build) v0.63
VERIFICATION PACKETSAMPLE MATTER · REPLY MEMORANDUM & SUPPORTING AFFIRMATIONPAGE 4 OF 17

What each verdict means, and the annotation key

THE ANNOTATION KEY USED ON PAGES 6–7 AND 10–14

highlighted green

Machine-verified against the cited source. The matched span is highlighted on the source page under the same marker.

highlighted amber

Read closely. Corrected, unresolvable, or refused for a damaged record — the packet is not accusing anyone, and it is not clearing anything either.

highlighted red

A deterministic finding: the source does not exist, is not in the record, or does not state the proposition. Positive evidence, not a failed search.

THE CLASSIFICATIONS USED IN THIS PACKET

VERIFIED

Character-for-character identical to the cited source, at the page or line cited.

VERIFIED · NORMALIZED

Identical once typographic artifacts — curly quotes, soft hyphens, line-break spacing — are normalised. The quotation was faithful; its characters were not. Normalisation runs before judgment, never after it.

CORRECTED

Not identical to the cited source. The nearest known-good text is printed with the finding, with attribution, so the fix is one click by the practitioner away from being implemented.

UNVERIFIED

The citation could not be resolved, so nothing was compared. Absence of evidence, recorded as absence — never inflated into an accusation.

FABRICATED

Positive evidence of non-existence: the cited location belongs to something else and no source under this caption exists anywhere searched.

NOT IN RECORD

The record index is complete as served and does not contain the document. Your record is a closed world, so absence in it is provable.

REFUSED · RECORD DAMAGED

The extracted source text fails the integrity audit. The quotation can be certified neither correct nor incorrect from these bytes, and a verdict against a corrupted record is not a verdict.

CONFIRMED

Paraphrase. The characterization sits inside spans the gate verified in the source, and every determination behind it rests on verified text.

OVERSTATED

Paraphrase. The source supports a narrower claim than the draft makes; the nearest supported paraphrase is printed with the finding.

UNSUPPORTED

Paraphrase. The source is real and correctly cited; the proposition attributed to it is not in it. A proposition-level failure, distinct from a fabricated citation.

Colour is never the classification — the words are. And the words are the ones counsel asked for, because “does this appear in the cited source, and if not, why not” is a different question from “is someone lying”.

PASS 7C-4192 · OLS Verifier · citation gate v4.2 · record gate v2.9 · paraphrase panel (in build) v0.64
VERIFICATION PACKETSAMPLE MATTER · REPLY MEMORANDUM & SUPPORTING AFFIRMATIONPAGE 5 OF 17

Sources, hashes and provenance

DOCUMENTS SERVED TO THIS PASS

DocumentKindExtractedSHA-256 (truncated)Integrity
Reply memorandum — draft under reviewdraft41,208 chars3f9c1a…7b42clean
Attorney affirmation — draft under reviewdraft9,860 charsa17e04…c9d1clean
Deposition transcript, 14 Feb 2026record612,447 charsbe2205…41afclean
Exhibit index and exhibits A–Erecord88,015 chars7d4410…0e6bclean
Rivera affidavit — scannedrecord4,102 charsc50f8b…9a20audit failed
Reporter text — 4 opinions retrievedcase law208,933 chars15ba7c…d3f81 of 4 damaged

REPAIR RECORD

No page-order repair was applied to any document in this pass. Where one is applied, this page names the document, the repair, who accepted it, when, and the path at which the unrepaired original is preserved — because a repaired source is still a changed source.

HOW TO SEEK TO A SPAN

Offsets are printed twice on every source page. chars is a character range into the extracted text named beside it; bytes is the same range in UTF-8 bytes of that same file. They differ on every source containing a curly quote, an em dash or a section symbol — which is every scanned instrument this system has processed.

Where a quotation is elliptical, the highlighted span runs from the first quoted word to the last and therefore includes the material the quotation omits. The highlight is the source over that range, not the quotation; comparing the two shows exactly what was elided.

PASS 7C-4192 · OLS Verifier · citation gate v4.2 · record gate v2.9 · paraphrase panel (in build) v0.65
VERIFICATION PACKETSAMPLE MATTER · REPLY MEMORANDUM & SUPPORTING AFFIRMATIONPAGE 6 OF 17

Annotated draft — reply memorandum, Point II · V01–V06

AS SERVED TO THE PASS — EVERY CHECKED PASSAGE HIGHLIGHTED AND TAGGED

Foreseeability is not an afterthought; it is the measure of the duty itself. “The risk reasonably to be perceived defines the duty to be obeyed” (Palsgraf v Long Is. R.R. Co., 248 NY 339, 344 [1928])[V01]. Where the parties stand in a fiduciary relation, the standard is stricter still: “Not honesty alone, but the punctilio of an honor the most sensi­tive, is then the standard of behavior” (Meinhard v Salmon, 249 NY 458, 464 [1928])[V02]. A negligently made product “is then a thing of imminent danger” (MacPherson v Buick Motor Co., 217 NY 382 [1916])[V03]. Respondent’s reliance on Matter of Haney v Ulster Cty. Bd. of Elections (Sup Ct, Ulster County, index No. EF2024-1189, May 14, 2024)[V04] is misplaced, as is its citation of Tillbury v Ardsley Terrace Assoc., 84 NY2d 913 [1994] (“a landlord’s constructive notice may be presumed from the mere passage of time”)[V05]. Finally, equity forbids the result below: “No one shall be permitted to profit by his own fraud, or to take advantage of his own wrong” (Riggs v Palmer, 115 NY 506, 511 [1889])[V06].

READING THIS PAGE

Green is verified, amber is read-closely, red is a finding — the key is on page 4. The two neighbours here are the point of the whole method: [V04] could not be found, and [V05] does not exist. They are marked differently because they are different, and page 12 shows the search behind each.

Follow any marker to the source page carrying the same marker over the matched text. V01 and V02 → V03 → V04 and V05 → V06 →

PASS 7C-4192 · OLS Verifier · citation gate v4.2 · record gate v2.9 · paraphrase panel (in build) v0.66
VERIFICATION PACKETSAMPLE MATTER · REPLY MEMORANDUM & SUPPORTING AFFIRMATIONPAGE 7 OF 17

Annotated draft — affirmation and paraphrases · V07–V14

ATTORNEY AFFIRMATION · ¶¶ 6–9 — ANNOTATED

6. Deponent conceded the condition long predated the notice: “the boiler had been out of service since at least the first week of January” (Tr. 141:7–12)[V07]. 7. A true copy of the lease, dated March 1, 2019, is annexed as Exhibit C[V08]. 8. The superintendent’s account is not to the contrary (Rivera Aff. ¶ 14)[V09]. 9. The parties’ course of dealing appears in the correspondence annexed as Exhibit F[V10].

REPLY MEMORANDUM · POINT III — THE PARAPHRASES, ANNOTATED

Cardozo measured the duty owed by the risk a reasonably prudent eye would have perceived (Palsgraf, 248 NY at 344).[V11] Meinhard holds that business partners owe one another the duty of finest loyalty in all their dealings.[V12] Palsgraf permits recovery for purely emotional injury to bystanders.[V13] Riggs v Palmer establishes that a court may disregard the plain text of a statute whenever enforcing it would be inequitable.[V14]

READING THIS PAGE

These four sentences quote nothing, so no string comparison can touch them. Each was identified as a paraphrase, its source resolved, and its text laid beside it — that much ships today. Each then went to the panel, whose full six-step record is reproduced for V12 on page 15 and V14 on page 16.

[V13] is highlighted red and has no highlighted counterpart on its source page. That absence is the finding, and page 10 says so in terms.

PASS 7C-4192 · OLS Verifier · citation gate v4.2 · record gate v2.9 · paraphrase panel (in build) v0.67
VERIFICATION PACKETSAMPLE MATTER · REPLY MEMORANDUM & SUPPORTING AFFIRMATIONPAGE 8 OF 17

Index and sign-off · V01–V07

EVERY MARKER, ITS VERDICT, AND WHERE ITS WORDS ARE

TagVerdictQuoted or claimed in the draftChecked againstWhere the words areSeen
[V01]VERIFIED“The risk reasonably to be perceived defines the duty to be obeyed”Palsgraf, 248 NY 339, 344 · reporter textchars [12,004, 12,062) · exact____
[V02]VERIFIED · NORMALIZED“Not honesty alone, but the punctilio of an honor the most sensitive…”Meinhard, 249 NY 458, 464 · reporter textchars [31,880, 31,972) · 3 artifacts normalised____
[V03]CORRECTED“is then a thing of imminent danger”MacPherson, 217 NY 382, 389 · reporter textchars [18,442, 18,571) · one-word divergence____
[V04]UNVERIFIEDMatter of Haney v Ulster Cty. Bd. of Elections, index No. EF2024-1189no source retrievednothing compared____
[V05]FABRICATEDTillbury v Ardsley Terrace Assoc., 84 NY2d 913 [1994]84 NY2d 913 · unrelated decisionpositive evidence of non-existence____
[V06]REFUSED · RECORD DAMAGED“No one shall be permitted to profit by his own fraud…”Riggs, 115 NY 506, 511 · scanned reporterchars [51,006, 51,144) · audit failed____
[V07]VERIFIED“the boiler had been out of service since at least the first week of January”Tr. 141:7–12 · deposition transcriptchars [402,118, 402,196) · exact at 141:9____

Initial the last column when you have matched the draft passage against the highlighted source passage under the same marker. The column exists because the packet’s claim is not that a human reviewed it — the claim is that a human could, in the time it takes to turn to the page.

PASS 7C-4192 · OLS Verifier · citation gate v4.2 · record gate v2.9 · paraphrase panel (in build) v0.68
VERIFICATION PACKETSAMPLE MATTER · REPLY MEMORANDUM & SUPPORTING AFFIRMATIONPAGE 9 OF 17

Index and sign-off · V08–V14

EVERY MARKER, ITS VERDICT, AND WHERE ITS WORDS ARE

TagVerdictQuoted or claimed in the draftChecked againstWhere the words areSeen
[V08]CORRECTEDthe lease, dated March 1, 2019, annexed as Exhibit CExhibit C · instrument indexchars [2,118, 2,130) · date role____
[V09]REFUSED · RECORD DAMAGED(Rivera Aff. ¶ 14)Rivera affidavit · scannedno certifiable span____
[V10]NOT IN RECORDannexed as Exhibit Frecord index · complete as servedno such exhibit____
[V11]CONFIRMEDCardozo measured the duty owed by the risk a reasonably prudent eye would have perceivedPalsgraf, 248 NY at 344 · panel 2 of 22 of 2 spans verbatim____
[V12]OVERSTATEDMeinhard holds that business partners owe one another the duty of finest loyalty in all their dealingsMeinhard, 249 NY 458 · panel 2 of 33 of 3 spans verbatim____
[V13]UNSUPPORTEDPalsgraf permits recovery for purely emotional injury to bystandersPalsgraf, 248 NY 339 · closed-document sweepno span states the claim____
[V14]OVERSTATEDRiggs v Palmer establishes that a court may disregard the plain text of a statute whenever…Riggs, 115 NY 506 · panel 2 of 3 surviving1 determination struck____

V11 through V14 are paraphrases. “Where the words are” names what the gate verified — the spans each reader relied on — not the characterization itself, which no script certifies and no model decides alone.

PASS 7C-4192 · OLS Verifier · citation gate v4.2 · record gate v2.9 · paraphrase panel (in build) v0.69
VERIFICATION PACKETSAMPLE MATTER · REPLY MEMORANDUM & SUPPORTING AFFIRMATIONPAGE 10 OF 17

Annotated source — Palsgraf and Meinhard · V01, V02, V11, V13

PALSGRAF v LONG IS. R.R. CO., 248 NY 339 [1928] — REPORTER TEXT, ANNOTATED

…Negligence in the abstract, apart from things related, is surely not a tort, if indeed it is understandable at all.[V11] Proof of negligence in the air, so to speak, will not do…
At248 NY 339, 341 · chars [8,442, 8,559) · bytes [8,461, 8,584)
…The risk reasonably to be perceived defines the duty to be obeyed[V01], and risk imports relation; it is risk to another or to others within the range of apprehension…
At248 NY 339, 344 · chars [12,004, 12,062) · bytes [12,019, 12,079)
…The law of causation, remote or proximate, is thus foreign to the case before us. The question of liability is always anterior to the question of the measure of the consequences that go with liability…
At248 NY 339, 346 · chars [15,880, 15,961) · bytes [15,899, 15,984)

MEINHARD v SALMON, 249 NY 458 [1928] — REPORTER TEXT, ANNOTATED

…Joint adventurers, like copartners, owe to one another, while the enterprise continues, the duty of the finest loyalty.[V12] Many forms of conduct permissible in a workaday world for those acting at arm’s length, are forbidden to those bound by fiduciary ties…
At249 NY 458, 463 · chars [29,110, 29,228) · bytes [29,131, 29,253)
…Not honesty alone, but the punctilio of an honor the most sensitive, is then the standard of behavior[V02]. Uncompromising rigidity has been the attitude of courts of equity…
At249 NY 458, 464 · chars [31,880, 31,972) · bytes [31,903, 31,999)

WHY V13 HAS NO HIGHLIGHT

The source occurrence is [V13] and it deliberately sits beside no highlighted span. The claim that Palsgraf permits recovery for purely emotional injury to bystanders has no words to mark, because the opinion was swept end to end and contains none.

The nearest passage in the opinion is marked amber above so that the distance can be judged rather than asserted. That is the whole difference between showing a reader the absence and telling them about it.

PASS 7C-4192 · OLS Verifier · citation gate v4.2 · record gate v2.9 · paraphrase panel (in build) v0.610
VERIFICATION PACKETSAMPLE MATTER · REPLY MEMORANDUM & SUPPORTING AFFIRMATIONPAGE 11 OF 17

Annotated source — MacPherson · V03

AS DRAFTED

A negligently made product “is then a thing of imminent danger” (MacPherson v Buick Motor Co., 217 NY 382 [1916]).

Draft locationreply memorandum · Point II · ¶ 4 · chars [12,884, 12,948)

MACPHERSON v BUICK MOTOR CO., 217 NY 382 [1916] — REPORTER TEXT, ANNOTATED

If the nature of a thing is such that it is reasonably certain to place life and limb in peril when negligently made, it is then a thing of danger[V03]. Its nature gives warning of the consequence to be expected…
At217 NY 382, 389 · chars [18,442, 18,571) · bytes [18,468, 18,599)
Integrityclean — extraction audit passed

WHAT THE GATE FOUND

A one-word divergence, and the highlights are laid over the same span in both directions so it can be seen rather than described. The word imminent appears nowhere in this opinion — not at page 389, not anywhere in it.

It belongs to the older rule this opinion was in the act of leaving behind — the “imminently dangerous” articles of Thomas v Winchester — which is why the error is an easy one to make, and worth naming precisely rather than flagging as a mismatch.

This is a corrected finding and not a fabricated one. The case exists, the page is right, the sentence is nearly right, and what comes back is the sentence.

NEAREST KNOWN-GOOD

NEAREST KNOWN-GOOD

“If the nature of a thing is such that it is reasonably certain to place life and limb in peril when negligently made, it is then a thing of danger.”

MacPherson v Buick Motor Co., 217 NY 382, 389 [1916]

Everything needed to confirm V03 is on this page.

PASS 7C-4192 · OLS Verifier · citation gate v4.2 · record gate v2.9 · paraphrase panel (in build) v0.611
VERIFICATION PACKETSAMPLE MATTER · REPLY MEMORANDUM & SUPPORTING AFFIRMATIONPAGE 12 OF 17

The two citations with no source · V04, V05

WHY THESE TWO SHARE A PAGE

They are the same event to a character-match tool — a citation that did not check out — and they are not the same thing at all. Printed side by side, with their search trails, because the difference decides what counsel says next and to whom.

V04 · UNVERIFIED

Matter of Haney v Ulster Cty. Bd. of Elections (Sup Ct, Ulster County, index No. EF2024-1189, May 14, 2024)[V04]

resolve   index EF2024-1189 .. not in corpus
resolve   caption search ..... no match
resolve   docket lookup ...... unpublished trial-court order
halt      no source retrieved — nothing compared

An unpublished trial-court order that public case-law databases cannot see. This system could not find it, and that is the entire claim. There is no annotated source page for V04 because there is no source — and inventing an accusation to fill the space is precisely the failure mode this classification exists to prevent (R-3).

What would resolve it: the order itself, or the docket entry. Serve either and V04 resolves in the next pass.

V05 · FABRICATED

Tillbury v Ardsley Terrace Assoc., 84 NY2d 913 [1994] (“a landlord’s constructive notice may be presumed from the mere passage of time”)[V05]

lookup    84 NY2d 913 ........ page exists — unrelated decision
          (caption omitted from this sample packet)
search    caption, official reports ..... 0 results
search    caption, all reporters ........ 0 results
search    parenthetical, verbatim ....... 0 results, any source
finding   positive evidence of non-existence

The cited page is occupied by another decision, no reporter carries the caption, and the quoted parenthetical appears nowhere. Absence here is not the limit of the search — it is the result of it, and it is the only kind of finding this system will call fabrication.

What would withdraw it: any reporter page, slip opinion or docket entry bearing this caption. Produce one and the finding falls.

PASS 7C-4192 · OLS Verifier · citation gate v4.2 · record gate v2.9 · paraphrase panel (in build) v0.612
VERIFICATION PACKETSAMPLE MATTER · REPLY MEMORANDUM & SUPPORTING AFFIRMATIONPAGE 13 OF 17

Annotated source — Riggs, damaged scan · V06

AS DRAFTED

Finally, equity forbids the result below: “No one shall be permitted to profit by his own fraud, or to take advantage of his own wrong” (Riggs v Palmer, 115 NY 506, 511 [1889]).

THE SERVED SPAN, EXACTLY AS EXTRACTED — NOT CLEANED, NOT GUESSED

…no one shall be permitted to pro t by his own fra ud, or to take adv nt-
age of his own wrong, or to found any claim upon his own iniq uity… [V06]
At115 NY 506, 511 · scanned reporter volume
Offsetschars [51,006, 51,144) · bytes [51,033, 51,180)

INTEGRITY AUDIT

  • character drops over the served span exceed the integrity threshold
  • broken ligatures detected fi, ft — consistent with a scan of this era of type
  • line-final hyphen with no continuation rule matched 1
  • the extraction integrity check failed over the served span

WHAT THIS PAGE DOES AND DOES NOT SAY

It does not say the quotation is wrong. Read against clean text it is almost certainly right — this is one of the most quoted sentences in the reports.

It does not say the quotation is right either, because it cannot. A verdict rendered against a corrupted record is not a verdict, and the audit runs before the comparison so damaged bytes are never graded (R-2). The damaged span is printed above rather than described, so the refusal can be checked as easily as a finding.

What would resolve it: a clean extraction of this reporter page, or the bound volume. Serve either and V06 resolves in the next pass.

PASS 7C-4192 · OLS Verifier · citation gate v4.2 · record gate v2.9 · paraphrase panel (in build) v0.613
VERIFICATION PACKETSAMPLE MATTER · REPLY MEMORANDUM & SUPPORTING AFFIRMATIONPAGE 14 OF 17

Annotated record — transcript, exhibits, index · V07–V10

V07 · DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPT, 14 FEB 2026 — ANNOTATED

141:7   Q.  And before the notice, what was the state of the
141:8       boiler?
141:9   A.  the boiler had been out of service since at least the
141:10      first week of January[V07] — I know because I logged it.
AtTr. 141:9–10 · chars [402,118, 402,196) · bytes [402,140, 402,220)

V08 · INSTRUMENT INDEX FOR EXHIBIT C — ANNOTATED

DateRole, by structural cueWhere it sits in the instrumentOffsets
27 Feb 2019executionsignature block, above the acknowledgmentchars [18,004, 18,017)
1 Mar 2019[V08]commencement of termhabendum — “to have and to hold for a term commencing…”chars [2,118, 2,130)
—recordingnot recorded; no endorsement present—

The lease is real, it is annexed, and the date in the affirmation is a real date in it. The defect is the role: “dated” names execution, and the date given is the commencement of the term. The index resolves each date by the structural cue around it — signature block, habendum, recording endorsement — rather than by proximity, so it can name the role instead of guessing at it. Where a month or day is damaged in a scan it refuses that date outright. Nothing on this page was inferred.

NEAREST KNOWN-GOOD

“…the lease executed February 27, 2019 and commencing March 1, 2019, annexed as Exhibit C.”

Instrument index · Exhibit C · dates as endorsed

V09 · RIVERA AFFIDAVIT ¶ 14 — SERVED SPAN

14. The supe intendent states that he at ended to the boi er on… [V09]

R-2 does not stop applying because the source is yours. The extraction integrity check failed over the span; the affidavit is refused, not graded.

V10 · EXHIBIT INDEX — COMPLETE AS SERVED

A — notice of terminationB — certified mail receiptC — leaseD — ledger extractE — correspondence, Jan–MarF — no such exhibit[V10]

The index is complete as served: A through E, and the affirmation annexes nothing further. This is the closed-world case — absence in your own record is provable, so the finding is NOT IN RECORD rather than the open-world UNVERIFIED that V04 received. The gate knows which world it is standing in, and says which.

PASS 7C-4192 · OLS Verifier · citation gate v4.2 · record gate v2.9 · paraphrase panel (in build) v0.614
VERIFICATION PACKETSAMPLE MATTER · REPLY MEMORANDUM & SUPPORTING AFFIRMATIONPAGE 15 OF 17

Panel record — V12, Meinhard

Panel in build Identifying this paraphrase, resolving its source and laying the text beside it ship today. The three-reader record below is the design as it will run, labelled on every page it touches.

THE SENTENCE AS DRAFTED

Meinhard holds that business partners owe one another the duty of finest loyalty in all their dealings.

Cited toMeinhard v Salmon, 249 NY 458 [1928]

STEP 1 · SCRIPT — CANDIDATE LANGUAGE LOCATED

resolve   Meinhard, 249 NY at 464 ..... found
audit     served span ................. clean
extract   claim terms ................. business partners · finest loyalty · all dealings
search    lexical + span retrieval .... candidate spans returned
rank      best candidate .............. p 463
flag      claim term “all dealings” ... no candidate contains it
halt      similarity is not support — no determination made
1
“Joint adventurers, like copartners, owe to one another, while the enterprise continues, the duty of the finest loyalty.”
249 NY at 463
2
“Not honesty alone, but the punctilio of an honor the most sensitive, is then the standard of behavior.”
249 NY at 464
3
“Many forms of conduct permissible in a workaday world for those acting at arm’s length, are forbidden to those bound by fiduciary ties.”
249 NY at 464

STEP 2 · READER ONE — 27B-PARAMETER DENSE MODEL

Joint adventurers, like copartners, owe to one another, while the enterprise continues, the duty of the finest loyalty.
Meinhard, 249 NY at 463 READER ONE — THINKING

The sentence names copartners and states the duty of the finest loyalty in those words. The draft says business partners owe one another the duty of finest loyalty. Read as a summary of the standard, it tracks the sentence closely.

DETERMINATION · SUPPORTEDSPAN VERIFIED VERBATIM IN THE SOURCE

STEP 3 · READER TWO — 12B-PARAMETER DENSE MODEL

Joint adventurers, like copartners, owe to one another, while the enterprise continues, the duty of the finest loyalty.
Meinhard, 249 NY at 463 READER TWO — THINKING

The sentence carries two limits the draft drops. The duty runs between joint adventurers and copartners in a common enterprise, and it runs while the enterprise continues. “Business partners” in “all their dealings” extends it past both limits, and no span in the opinion extends it that far.

DETERMINATION · NOT SUPPORTEDSPAN VERIFIED VERBATIM IN THE SOURCE

STEP 4 · TIEBREAK READER — 32B-PARAMETER MIXTURE-OF-EXPERTS MODEL

Not honesty alone, but the punctilio of an honor the most sensitive, is then the standard of behavior.
Meinhard, 249 NY at 464 TIEBREAK READER — THINKING

The word that governs this passage is “then”: the punctilio is the standard for those already bound by the relation the opinion has just described. The opinion states a stricter standard for co-adventurers; it does not state a rule for partners at large in all their dealings.

DETERMINATION · NOT SUPPORTEDSPAN VERIFIED VERBATIM IN THE SOURCE

STEP 5 · SYSTEM — MODEL RECOMMENDATION

Tally2 of 3 readers · NOT SUPPORTED
RecommendationNOT SUPPORTED

The model majority is advisory. The minority reading remains in the packet for counsel.

STEP 6 · SCRIPT — FINAL GATE

verify    reader one span ..... verbatim at 249 NY 463   ✓
verify    reader two span ..... verbatim at 249 NY 463   ✓
verify    tiebreak span ....... verbatim at 249 NY 464   ✓
re-tally  determinations on verbatim spans ... 3 of 3
adopt     recommendation stands — recorded as advisory
issue     packet verdict ...... OVERSTATED

All three spans are in the opinion. The disagreement was never about what the text says — it was about how far the text reaches, which is exactly the class of question a script cannot settle and a packet must therefore show. The correction narrows the claim to what the verified spans support.

VERDICT AS FILED

OVERSTATED

The case is right, the standard is right, the reach is wrong. The correction does the shopping (R-4, extended from text to meaning): the nearest paraphrase the verified spans will carry.

NEAREST SUPPORTED PARAPHRASE

“Meinhard holds co-adventurers to the punctilio of an honor the most sensitive while the enterprise continues — a standard stricter than the morals of the marketplace.”

Meinhard v Salmon, 249 NY 458, 463–464 [1928]

Everything needed to confirm V12 is on this page. The highlighted spans are on page 10 →

PASS 7C-4192 · OLS Verifier · citation gate v4.2 · record gate v2.9 · paraphrase panel (in build) v0.615
VERIFICATION PACKETSAMPLE MATTER · REPLY MEMORANDUM & SUPPORTING AFFIRMATIONPAGE 16 OF 17

Panel record — V14, Riggs, one determination struck

Panel in build The struck determination below is printed in full, marked, and kept. A quotation that does not exist is a fact about this pass, and suppressing it would leave the reader with a tidier record and less of the truth.

ANNOTATED SOURCE · CANONICAL MATCH

No one shall be permitted to profit by his own fraud, or to take advantage of his own wrong, or to found any claim upon his own iniquity, or to acquire property by his own crime.[V14]
AtRiggs, 115 NY at 511

The same marker is on the draft and in the index. The record below preserves every advisory reading, including the one the final script struck.

THE SENTENCE AS DRAFTED

Riggs v Palmer establishes that a court may disregard the plain text of a statute whenever enforcing it would be inequitable.

Cited toRiggs v Palmer, 115 NY 506 [1889]

STEP 1 · SCRIPT — CANDIDATE LANGUAGE LOCATED

resolve   Riggs v Palmer, 115 NY 506 .. found
audit     served span ................. clean
extract   claim terms ................. disregard plain text · statute · whenever · inequitable
search    lexical + span retrieval .... candidate spans returned
rank      best candidate .............. p 511
flag      claim term “whenever” ....... no candidate supports an unlimited rule
halt      similarity is not support — no determination made
1
“All laws as well as all contracts may be controlled in their operation and effect by general, fundamental maxims of the common law.”
115 NY at 511
2
“No one shall be permitted to profit by his own fraud, or to take advantage of his own wrong, or to found any claim upon his own iniquity, or to acquire property by his own crime.”
115 NY at 511
3
“It never could have been their intention that a donee who murdered the testator to make the will operative should have any benefit under it.”
115 NY at 509

STEP 2 · READER ONE — 27B-PARAMETER DENSE MODEL

A court of equity will not suffer the letter of a statute to work an injustice in a case its framers did not foresee.
Riggs, 115 NY at 511 — as quoted by the reader READER ONE — THINKING

On this sentence the opinion states a general equitable power to decline the literal operation of a statute where enforcement would produce injustice. The draft states that power in modern words.

DETERMINATION · SUPPORTEDSPAN NOT FOUND — DETERMINATION STRUCK

STEP 3 · READER TWO — 12B-PARAMETER DENSE MODEL

No one shall be permitted to profit by his own fraud, or to take advantage of his own wrong, or to found any claim upon his own iniquity, or to acquire property by his own crime.
Riggs, 115 NY at 511 READER TWO — THINKING

The opinion controls the statute of wills by a specific maxim in a specific case: a murderer may not take under the will of the person he killed. “Whenever enforcing it would be inequitable” is a general power the opinion never claims, and it is the word “whenever” that does the overstating.

DETERMINATION · NOT SUPPORTEDSPAN VERIFIED VERBATIM IN THE SOURCE

STEP 4 · TIEBREAK READER — 32B-PARAMETER MIXTURE-OF-EXPERTS MODEL

It never could have been their intention that a donee who murdered the testator to make the will operative should have any benefit under it.
Riggs, 115 NY at 509 TIEBREAK READER — THINKING

The court reads the statute as the legislature would have written it for this case, rather than setting the statute aside. That is a canon of construction applied to one situation, not a licence to disregard plain text whenever a result seems inequitable.

DETERMINATION · NOT SUPPORTEDSPAN VERIFIED VERBATIM IN THE SOURCE

STEP 5 · SYSTEM — MODEL RECOMMENDATION

Tally2 of 3 readers · NOT SUPPORTED
RecommendationNOT SUPPORTED

Provisional: the readers’ majority, recorded on their say-so alone. The final gate follows.

STEP 6 · SCRIPT — FINAL GATE

verify    reader one span ..... NOT FOUND in the opinion — STRUCK
search    all reporters ....... span appears in no NY opinion
verify    reader two span ..... verbatim at 115 NY 511   ✓
verify    tiebreak span ....... verbatim at 115 NY 509   ✓
strike    reader one determination ... removed from the tally, recorded in the packet
re-tally  determinations on verbatim spans ... 2 of 3
issue     packet verdict ...... OVERSTATED

Reader One supported the paraphrase and quoted the opinion to prove it. The quotation is not in the opinion — not at page 511, not anywhere in it, and not in any other opinion in the reports. The gate does not argue with the reasoning; it checks the text the reasoning stands on, finds nothing there, and strikes the determination. Had that struck determination carried the majority, no recommendation would have been recorded at all and the paraphrase would have returned to counsel unresolved. This is what “scripts gate, models advise” means on the day it costs something.

VERDICT AS FILED

OVERSTATED

The maxim is real and the case is famous for it. The draft turns a maxim applied to a murdering legatee into a general power over statutes — and the packet records both the narrowing and the struck determination that argued against it.

NEAREST SUPPORTED PARAPHRASE

“Riggs applies the maxim that no one may profit by his own wrong to deny a murderer the benefit of his victim’s will, construing the statute of wills as the legislature would have written it for that case.”

Riggs v Palmer, 115 NY 506, 509, 511 [1889]

Everything needed to confirm V14 is on this page.

PASS 7C-4192 · OLS Verifier · citation gate v4.2 · record gate v2.9 · paraphrase panel (in build) v0.616
VERIFICATION PACKETSAMPLE MATTER · REPLY MEMORANDUM & SUPPORTING AFFIRMATIONPAGE 17 OF 17

Sign-off

THE STANDING OF THIS DOCUMENT

The findings in this packet were produced by the deterministic gates named on page 1. They are a record of what was checked, not a legal opinion, and they do not replace attorney review. Where a model contributed, its contribution is recorded as advisory, its reasoning is preserved verbatim, and the text it relied on was audited by a script before any verdict issued (R-5).

4 findings are clean. 10 want a decision from counsel, and every one of them has an annotated source page or a panel record above, under its own marker.

REVIEW

Reviewed by
Date
Approved by
Date

The machine checks everything. A person signs last.

PASS 7C-4192 · OLS Verifier · citation gate v4.2 · record gate v2.9 · paraphrase panel (in build) v0.617

This packet is the product.

The Verifier beta returns exactly this: classified verdicts, the annotated draft, the annotated sources under matching markers, corrections with attribution, the limits printed before the findings, and a signature block for the person whose name goes on the filing.

Request beta access →

Act III panel status: identification and side-by-side presentation available · three-reader panel in build

§ 02

WHY YOU CAN TRUST THE VERDICTS

Seven rules, each learned the hard way.

The Verifier’s doctrine was not designed on a whiteboard. Each rule exists because a real quotation was once wrongly accused, or a real fabrication once slipped through. This is the part of the system we would defend under cross-examination.

  1. R-1

    A correct quote that looks fabricated is worse than a missed fabrication.

    Smart quotes, ellipses, and line-break hyphens make faithful quotations look invented. The Verifier normalises these artifacts before judging, because falsely accusing your own accurate work destroys trust in every verdict that follows.

  2. R-2

    Audit the record before a model reads it.

    If the extracted text of a source is damaged — bad OCR, mangled characters, broken spans — the Verifier refuses to grade against it. A verdict rendered on a corrupted record is not a verdict.

  3. R-3

    Unverified is not fabricated.

    A citation that cannot be resolved is unverified. Only a positive finding of non-existence is fabrication. Most tools collapse the two into one alarm. We never do — the difference is the difference between “I could not find it” and “it does not exist.”

  4. R-4

    The correction must do the shopping.

    A failed quotation does not come back as a mere accusation. It comes back with the nearest known-good quote and its attribution, so the fix is one click by the practitioner away from being implemented, not one research session away.

  5. R-5

    Scripts gate, models advise.

    Deterministic code decides pass or fail. Model review is advisory, and it is recorded as advisory. Nothing load-bearing rests on a language model’s say-so.

  6. R-6

    The verifier never inherits the generator’s frame.

    Nothing the Verifier sees is the prompt that produced the text. It judges the words on the page against the record, the way opposing counsel will.

  7. R-7

    A quote proves text, not relevance.

    Verbatim-in-source is necessary and never sufficient. Whether an accurate quote actually supports your proposition is a separate, independent stage.

§ 03

PILLAR ONE · PRIVACY

No cloud by default.

OLS runs on hardware your firm controls. That is an architecture, not a policy promise — the models, the documents, and the work product live inside your walls.

Cloud legal AI asks you to route client confidences through someone else’s infrastructure and to take retention and training policies on trust. OLS removes the question. Documents are ingested, indexed, drafted from, and verified on machines you own. There is no server of ours holding your record, because there is no server of ours.

Some work requires looking outward — you cannot check a citation against the reporter without asking the reporter. So we publish exactly what crosses the wire, and what never does. The table opposite is the complete list.

What leaves the building

The complete outbound traffic, and the standing prohibition.

OUTBOUND — PUBLIC-RECORD LOOKUPS ONLY
Citation resolutionQueries public case-law databases. The query is the citation — never your document, never your argument.
Docket monitoringChecks public court dockets for matters you track.
Law watchPulls public statutory and case-law updates.
NEVER LEAVES
Client documents. Transcripts. Drafts. Notes. Prompts. Work product. Anything privileged. This is enforced by architecture — the drafting and verification pipelines have no cloud dependency to send them to.

If that list ever changes, this page changes first.

§ 04

THE ALL-IN-ONE SYSTEM

One partner across the whole practice.

OLS is a single system that carries a matter from intake to filing — drafting, research, strategy, and the operational memory around them. Everything below is labelled with exactly what it is today. Nothing here is aspiration dressed as product.

Available In build On the roadmap

Available — built and running today. In build — a working pipeline stage, not yet a standalone product. On the roadmap — planned, and labelled that way.

Drafting

Available

Motion, opposition & reply drafting

A pleading composer, not an autocomplete: allegations, doctrine rules, procedural assembly, an instrument index with recording-date resolution, a reference gate, and deterministic guardrails before anything ships.

Available

Discovery demand drafter

Drafts demands anchored to the actual pleadings and docket. Firm style card, exemplar banks mined from your own filings, a compliance gate, a second-chair review pass, and a redline.

In build

Discovery response drafter

The inbound objection lane exists inside the discovery pipeline today. It is not yet a standalone product, so that is not what we call it.

In build

Letter composer

Client-email composition ships today as a stage inside the pleading and strategy pipelines. A general letter composer is being factored out of them.

On the roadmap

Good-faith letter composer

The good-faith requirements already exist as doctrine rules and motion logic. The dedicated composer is planned — and until it ships, it stays in this column.

Research & judgment

Available · beta

Verifier

Source-agnostic verification of citations and quotations with classified verdicts. Resolves citations against public case-law databases and returns the nearest known-good quote with attribution — not just an accusation. This is the beta product.

Available

Research Director

Case-law search and opinion retrieval with a doctrine question gate and budgeted authority lookup — research that knows when to stop.

Available

Case Strategizer

A record-driven strategy memo: New York motion analysis, linked research, and a client email draft, built from the actual record.

Available

Law watch

Monitoring of statutory and case-law change, so the ground does not move under a live matter without you hearing about it.

Practice operations

Available

Matter digests

A daily brief and per-matter intelligence: facts, timeline, entities, and deadlines, kept current.

Available

Meeting notetaker

Recording, transcription, and structured analysis of meetings — decisions and follow-ups, not a wall of transcript.

Available

Document intake & indexing

Dual-extractor PDF text extraction that keeps the better result, plus a quality assessment that judges whether extracted text is fit to quote.

Available

Docket monitoring

Court docket tracking and retrieval for the matters you designate.

Available

Form library

Retrieval over your firm’s own forms and exemplars — your paper, not generic templates.

In build

Discovery reviewer & indexer

Intake, extraction, and instrument indexing exist today. The reviewer surface is in progress.

On the roadmap

Deadline & calendar intelligence

Planned. Deadlines already surface in matter digests; the dedicated calendar layer does not exist yet, and we will not pretend otherwise.

On the roadmap

Cross-matter portfolio analytics

Planned: patterns across the whole docket, not just inside one matter.

§ 05

PROVENANCE

Built inside a working litigation practice.

OLS was not assembled by a product team guessing at what lawyers do. It has been built inside a live litigation practice, on real motions, real discovery, and real deadlines — and rebuilt every time practice proved a design wrong.

That is why the system is shaped the way it is. Drafting runs behind gates because drafts get filed. The Verifier classifies its verdicts because an unresolvable citation and an invented one call for different conversations. The discovery drafter reads the pleadings because demands that ignore the pleadings get objected to.

We describe features in three plain statuses because this audience — our audience — bills by the hour for reading claims critically. The next step in legal workflow aided by AI should be able to survive that reading.

§ 06

WITHOUT THE SALES CALL

Straight answers.

What exactly do I get in the beta?

The Verifier. You point it at a draft — or a passage — and it returns classified verdicts on every citation and quotation, with evidence and, where a quote fails, the nearest known-good text with attribution. The rest of the system ships to beta firms as it clears our own gates, and this page will say so when it does.

Does any of my data touch your servers?

No — we do not operate servers that hold your data. OLS runs on hardware your firm controls. The only outbound traffic is public-record lookups: citation resolution, docket checks, and law-watch feeds. The complete list is published above, and if it ever changes, this page changes first.

Is this a wrapper around a chatbot?

No. OLS is a set of pipelines with deterministic gates: drafting stages, doctrine rules, reference checks, compliance passes. Language models do the writing and the advising inside that structure; scripts decide what passes. A chat box is one way in, not the architecture.

Will the Verifier tell me a citation is fine when it isn’t?

It is built not to guess. When it cannot resolve a source, it says unverified — it does not round that up to fine, and it does not round it down to fabricated. When the record itself is too damaged to judge against, it refuses and says why. Those honest middle verdicts are the point.

What does it run on?

On machines your firm owns and controls, sized to the practice. Beta onboarding covers hardware with you directly — tell us what you would verify first and we will come back with specifics.

VERIFIER BETA

Put the gate to work.

Beta firms get the Verifier on their own hardware, direct onboarding, and a straight line to the people building the system. We are deliberately small in this phase: litigation practices that will actually run drafts through the gate and tell us where it is wrong.

We reply to every request. No mailing list, no drip campaign — your email is used to answer you.

Enter a valid email address.

Verifier beta only, as advertised. We’ll tell you what the rest of the system can do when you ask — honestly.