Organize authorized matter records, source citations, and review tasks while lawyers retain legal judgment and client advice.
Explore in the architecture studioIllustrative reference architecture. Validate requirements for your organization.
Illustrative architecture: A legal team prepares a chronology for a commercial dispute using correspondence, contracts, invoices, and witness materials. Reviewers need consistent references and a clear account of conflicting evidence. Agents assist document organization and drafting; the architecture does not supply legal advice or autonomous litigation strategy.
Documents may be privileged, restricted to particular teams, duplicated with changed metadata, or subject to preservation obligations. A generated chronology can make unsupported factual assertions or expose one matter's confidential material through shared retrieval.
Ingestion, chronology, citation, and review-coordination specialists operate within a matter-specific boundary. The evidence store preserves original files and extraction lineage; lawyers determine relevance, privilege, legal interpretation, and final work product.
The intended result is a reviewable operational decision with source evidence and explicit ownership. Evaluate evidence preparation and citation quality while keeping legal outcomes outside the agent's claimed contribution. The useful deliverable is a reviewable record of what documents support, not an automated opinion about the merits of a matter.
Index authorized documents and preserve file hashes, custodians, and source metadata.
Cannot delete preserved material or change original evidence.
Extract candidate events with dates, participants, and exact supporting passages.
Cannot resolve disputed facts or infer missing events as established truth.
Check draft references against source passages and document versions.
Cannot fabricate authorities or treat a quotation as legal analysis.
Route disputed facts, missing evidence, and confidentiality questions to assigned lawyers.
Cannot determine privilege, contact parties, or file documents.
Owns team membership, assignments, client scope, and approved work-product records.
Retains original documents, preservation metadata, extraction versions, and controlled access.
Separates candidate findings from accepted facts and records reviewer decisions without exposing protected material to general search.
flowchart LR
N0["Matter evidence and chronology workspace"]
N1["Matter intake agent"]
N2["Chronology analyst"]
N3["Citation verifier"]
N4["Review coordinator"]
N5["Evidence ledger"]
N6["Human decision"]
N7["Authorized adapter"]
N0 --> N1
N1 --> N2
N2 --> N3
N3 --> N4
N4 --> N5
N5 --> N6
N6 --> N7sequenceDiagram
participant O as "Case orchestrator"
participant S as "Matter management platform"
participant H as "Accountable reviewer"
O->>S: Retrieve matter-scoped evidence
S-->>O: Candidate document with foreign matter ID
O->>H: Block result and report isolation fault
O->>S: Repeat retrieval with verified partition
O->>H: Present authorized source-bound chronologyBind every job to an authorized matter, reviewer, evidence collection, and permitted processing purpose.
Parse working copies while retaining original hashes and custody metadata; quarantine unsupported or corrupted files.
Normalize dates with timezone and uncertainty metadata and retain exact passages supporting each proposed event.
Verify document versions and expose contradictory accounts rather than choosing the most fluent narrative.
Present lawyers with evidence-linked chronology entries and separate queues for privilege, relevance, and factual disputes.
Save the reviewed revision with source manifest and access policy; later evidence changes create a new review revision.
Detect: Matter-bound authorization checks reject the cached document identifier before rendering.
Recover: Discard the result, investigate the cache partition failure, and rerun retrieval within the authorized matter boundary.
Detect: Citation verification finds the passage missing or materially different in the referenced file.
Recover: Remove the unsupported assertion and require a fresh source-backed entry for lawyer review.
Measurement definitions, not promised improvements.
Audited citations resolving to the stated passage and version divided by audited citations.
Candidate entries materially changed or rejected by lawyers divided by reviewed entries.
Cross-matter access attempts that return protected content, monitored separately from correctly denied attempts.
Elapsed time from authorized collection availability to lawyer-reviewable chronology and exception queues.
| Decision | Benefit | Cost |
|---|---|---|
| Matter-specific indexes | Reduce cross-client information exposure. | Increase storage and index-management overhead. |
| Source-bound chronology | Makes factual claims inspectable. | Ambiguous dates and contradictions require deliberate review. |
| Immutable evidence copies | Preserve reconstruction of the record. | Retention and storage obligations need separate operational management. |
Lawyers verify source references, contradictory facts, preservation behavior, and denied cross-matter access.
One team reviews draft chronology entries without external communications, filings, or original-document changes.
Accepted revisions enter the workspace after cache-isolation and changed-source-citation tests pass.