Institutional knowledge graph
Matters, people, documents, authorities, obligations, and evidence are represented as typed, connected entities.
Evidence, authority and governed reasoning
Legal Intelligence
A governed intelligence system that turns a law firm’s own documents and institutional knowledge into a connected, evidence-backed environment for investigation and decision support.
The problem
Institutional knowledge is valuable only when it can be found, trusted, and applied.
Legal knowledge is scattered across matters, documents, people, and precedent. Search can retrieve text, but it does not establish authority, permission, provenance, or whether the evidence actually supports the answer.
Legal Intelligence connects the firm’s knowledge into a governed reasoning environment. Questions are investigated within an authorized scope, answers distinguish fact from inference and limitation, and every material claim remains connected to inspectable evidence.
AuthorizedScope before retrieval
Evidence-backedClaim-level support
TraceableReasoning and receipts
Review-awareHuman judgment retained
Technical architecture
What sits behind the demonstration
The public architecture describes the reasoning and governance design without exposing protected source material, proprietary prompts, internal rules, credentials, or model-provider details.
Server-controlled authorization
One immutable scope governs prepared questions, search, graph traversal, follow-ups, and evidence access.
Graph-grounded investigation
Retrieval follows meaningful relationships across the authorized knowledge environment instead of treating documents as isolated text.
Governed LLM
Answer generation is constrained by the retrieved evidence and structured as fact, inference, and limitation.
Claim-to-evidence trace
Material conclusions remain connected to their supporting source passages, provenance, and execution receipt.
Human judgment boundaries
Restricted requests fail closed, while consequential fee, timeline, and legal decisions remain subject to responsible review.