Aletheia is the quotation and citation verifier for litigation drafts. It is designed to compare quotations in a legal draft with your supplied authorities, word for word, and to return the Chambers Report: the draft beside annotated sources, a finding index with per-finding cards for counsel, and a tracked-changes Word document (.docx).
Checking quotations shouldn’t require twenty open tabs, hunt-and-peck PDF searches, or wondering if a language model smoothed over an altered word.
Aletheia returns a unified artifact: your draft with exact inline markers, the cited authority with the matching passage highlighted, and a tracked-changes Word document showing each discrepancy the deterministic checks identify, including punctuation shifts and dropped negatives.
Exact-span nested diffs: Insertions, omissions and replacements within a located passage, identified to the character.
Tracked-changes Word (.docx): Open directly in Microsoft Word with revisions ready to accept or decline.
Annotated source record: Full source paragraph with page locations and provenance hashes.
Finding index: Each passage appears once with all its checks together, labelled Verified, Correction required, or Needs source or counsel, for counsel’s review.
Olympus / Aletheia, the Chambers Report
Illustrated report · sample findings, not a product capture or test result.
Counsel’s review copy
Chambers Report
The finding, its source and the limits
V01
Palsgraf v Long Is. R.R. Co.
248 NY 339, 344 [1928]
✓ verified
“The risk reasonably to be perceived defines the duty to be obeyed”
Matched in source · p. 344
V02
Quotation differs
Nearest source text attached
≠ corrected
V03
Source unresolved
No accusation of fabrication
? unverified
Human reviewInitials____
Models advise; scripts gate.01 / Review
Fabricated citations and altered quotations.
Generative AI and rushed drafting have made quotation checking both more urgent and harder. Language models can produce plausible-sounding authorities or subtly alter quoted language.
Quotation checks often miss the subtleties that matter most: short quotes skipped as “too short to verify,” punctuation shifts that fuse separate sentences, and ellipses that quietly drop conditional clauses or negations.
Invented authority
A citation that does not exist in any supplied docket, volume, or reporter. Aletheia is designed to resolve citations against supplied sources and mark unresolved authorities for review. A missing source alone does not prove non-existence.
Flipped commands
Dropping a single negative particle or prefix (such as turning “unlawful” into “lawful”) can reverse a legal rule while leaving most of the words identical. Aletheia is designed to detect this change; the illustration is not a measured detection rate.
Fusions and stitches
Replacing a period with a semicolon to fuse two different holdings into one synthetic sentence, or stitching text from distant pages under a single set of quotation marks.
What Aletheia is designed to detect.
These synthetic illustrations describe intended behavior, not measured detection rates. Test results must identify the corpus version, release and date.Read the evidence status and limits.
Short quotation alterations× fabricated
Aletheia is designed to detect meaning changes in short quotations, including a dropped negative prefix. A short quotation may require review when the evidence is insufficient.
Synthetic example: Brief: “lawful and void” vs. Source: “unlawful and void”
Ellipsis that changes meaning is an alteration≠ corrected
Aletheia is designed to detect ellipses that remove a negation, operative condition or actor and thereby change meaning.
Synthetic example: Brief: “may commence … and the court shall dismiss”
Sentence fusion by punctuation× fabricated
Aletheia is designed to detect punctuation changes that fuse separate source sentences into one quotation, including around abbreviations and short passages.
Synthetic example: Brief: “motion is denied; plaintiff established a prima facie case”
Stitched quotations across opinions× fabricated
Aletheia is designed to detect passages stitched from different parts of an opinion and changed star-page markers inside quotations.
Synthetic example: Two distinct paragraphs stitched under one set of quotation marks
Aletheia is designed to distinguish disclosed bracketed substitutions from undisclosed deletions and to identify the source words for counsel’s review.
Synthetic example: Brief: “[returned] all statutory deposits” vs. Source: “withheld all statutory deposits”
Negation guard on short matches× fabricated
Aletheia is designed to detect omitted adjacent negation in short matches, such as a missing ‘not’.
Synthetic example: Brief: “shall enforce” vs. Source: “shall not enforce”
OCR damage withholds instead of accusing○ refused
Aletheia is designed to withhold a finding when scan damage makes source text unreliable, while distinguishing actual changes to numbers, years and pages.
Synthetic example: Source scan damage in evidence window causes deliberate refusal to grade
Misattribution distinguished from fabrication≠ corrected
Aletheia is designed to distinguish a quotation found in another supplied source from an unsupported quotation. A missing match alone does not prove fabrication.
Synthetic example: Verbatim quote matched in Exhibit D instead of the cited Exhibit B
Rejected contention is not a holding? unverified
Aletheia is designed to detect when a quotation presents a rejected party contention as the court’s holding. Counsel must review the context.
Synthetic example: Party argument quoted verbatim from discussion of rejected claims
Internal obstacle and adversarial tests evaluate specific releases. Results on an internal test set do not establish performance on other drafts or sources.
Copy reviewed October 20, 2026. Measured results and their test dates are pending publication.See the substantiation status.
Internal obstacle tests
Corpus version, tested release, result and date await publication.
Internal adversarial tests
The corpus, adversary configuration, result and test date await publication.
Release comparison
Baseline and candidate commits, changed verdicts and test date await publication.
Regression results
Release-specific counts await publication; test goals are not universal guarantees.
Dual-path parity: Align and Batch
The internal test plan compares the align and batch paths. Release-specific results are pending. The review goals are:
Identify altered quotations that were silently cleared.
Protect legitimate quotations and acceptable conventions from false accusations.
Preserve detection of previously identified alterations.
Check recovered clearances against the labelled baseline.
Obstacle diff benchmark & adversarial model
A dated release comparison will identify the internal test set, baseline and candidate commits:
Measured comparison pending publication. Counts of changed verdicts, recovered clearances, false accusations and lost detections require a linked test record.
Internal adversarial testing: The corpus version, model configuration, tested commit, result and date must accompany any published result. That evidence is pending.
The illustrations on this page use synthetic text. They do not establish performance on client documents. Counsel remains responsible for reviewing each finding and its sources.
Read the sample Chambers Reports.
Two complete packets produced by the verifier in September 2026 from synthetic demonstration material; the report date appears on each cover. No client or real matter content appears in either.
Human review is still required. Aletheia makes it quick.
Each packet closes with the source itself, line by line. Passages that need correction are underlined in red, verified passages in green, and every mark names the finding it supports. Counsel checks the highlighted words against the draft instead of hunting through the record.
In New York civil litigation, signing a paper certifies that, after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances, the paper and its contentions are not frivolous. False material factual statements are one basis for a finding of frivolous conduct. See 22 NYCRR §§ 130-1.1(c), 130-1.1a(b). A Chambers Report supports your review; it cannot guarantee compliance or immunity from sanctions.
Appendix A of the certified sample packet (synthetic source). Red: correction required. Green: verified word for word.
How a draft becomes a Chambers Report.
Walk through how Aletheia separates citation resolution, extraction integrity, and final packet compilation.
The words can be exact. The use can still mislead.
Aletheia checks quotations and citations against their cited sources, then brings the evidence together in the Chambers Report.
See what matches. See what needs a closer reading. Decide what belongs in the brief.
Authored illustration, not an executed check. All parties, cases, citations, brief text, source passages, findings and model responses are fictional. This demonstration accepts no documents and makes no engine or model calls.
Review the evidence from either side of the brief.
Begin with the brief and its sources.
Quotations, citations and paraphrases enter the same review. The first question is what can actually be checked.
Cedar Arcade LLC v Lorne Studio Inc., 221 AD3d 705, 708 [1st Dept 2023].
Brief page 5 · Paraphrase
Every repair expense is recoverable, even without notice to the landlord.
Citing Cedar Arcade, at 708.
Brief page 6 · Citation with no supplied source
The tenant also seeks reimbursement for routine maintenance.
Doran Square LLC v West Vale LLC, 222 AD3d 810, 812 [2d Dept 2023].
Brief pp. 4 – 6
Locate the passage and record the gaps.
This illustration pairs three quotations with supplied fictional authorities and routes a paraphrase to Section 3. The fourth citation has no supplied source, so its check remains incomplete.
In the briefCited sourceDestination
Q1The wrong speakerBrief page 4
Alder Quay LLC v Mercer Lane Co.Source page 412 · supplied
Section 1 Text & citation Section 2 Use & context
Q2A bracket worth reviewingBrief page 4
Briar Steps Realty LLC v Vale Works Inc.Source page 623 · supplied
Section 1 Text & citation Section 2 Use & context
Q3A condition made visibleBrief page 5
Cedar Arcade LLC v Lorne Studio Inc.Source page 708 · supplied
Section 1 Text & citation Section 2 Use & context
P1A paraphraseBrief page 5
Cedar Arcade LLC v Lorne Studio Inc.Source page 708 · supplied
Section 3 Model council
C1One further citationBrief page 6
Doran Square LLC v West Vale LLCSource not supplied · source page unavailable
Coverage advisory Finding 5 · report page 2
A missing source is a limit, not an accusation.
The Chambers Report says what could not be checked and what counsel needs to supply. It does not turn an unsuccessful lookup into a claim that a case is invented.
“Does it match?” is only the first question.
Section 1 checks text and citation facts. Section 2 examines the use in context. A concern about meaning does not erase a text match.
Your briefAdversary’s briefPage 4
The court held that The notice provision may be disregarded whenever performance becomes inconvenient.
Alder Quay LLC v Mercer Lane Co., 214 AD3d 410, 412 [1st Dept 2023].
The cited sourcePage 412
The tenant argues that “The notice provision may be disregarded whenever performance becomes inconvenient.” We reject that contention. The notice provision governs the requested termination.
Fictional opinion · surrounding words retained
Section 1 / Text facts
Illustrated text result.
Words, citation and pin cite match the fictional source. No alteration or omission is present.
Brief p. 4 · Source p. 412 · Report p. 2
Section 2 / Advisory
Highly suspect · illustrated
A party’s argument is presented as the court’s holding.
The source identifies the tenant as the speaker and immediately rejects the contention. The words match, but the brief reverses who said them and how the court treated them.
In a live report, red appears only when a frozen deterministic gate confirms the proof. Here the proof is in the source itself: it names the tenant as the speaker and rejects the contention in the next sentence. This example is authored; no gate ran.
Finding 1 · Report page 3
Before filing, correct the attribution and reconsider the proposition this citation is offered to support.
A possible response: the quoted sentence records the tenant’s argument, which the court rejected. Quote the next sentence back: “We reject that contention.”
The assessment is advisory. You inspect the evidence and decide.
Your briefAdversary’s briefPage 4
The decision confirms that The managing agent told [the owner] that access would be arranged.
Briar Steps Realty LLC v Vale Works Inc., 219 AD3d 620, 623 [2d Dept 2023].
The cited sourcePage 623
The owner and the contractor exchanged correspondence. The managing agent told it that access would be arranged. The letters did not identify who would receive the keys.
Fictional opinion · surrounding words retained
Section 1 / Text facts
Illustrated text result.
The substitution of “[the owner]” for “it” is visibly marked. The surrounding words, citation and pin cite match.
Brief p. 4 · Source p. 623 · Report p. 2
Section 2 / Advisory
50/50 · review needed · illustrated
The bracket chooses a referent the passage leaves uncertain.
The bracket identifies the owner, but the surrounding passage also names the contractor. The question is what “it” refers to. The excerpt alone does not settle that question.
In a live report, orange is the category for model-only suspicion. “50/50” names the review category, not a measured probability. This example is authored; no model assessed it.
Finding 2 · Report page 4
Before filing, inspect the full opinion before identifying the owner in brackets. Preserve the ambiguity if the source does not resolve it.
A possible response: the bracket supplies an identity the quoted passage does not establish. Ask counsel to identify the passage supporting that substitution.
The assessment is advisory. You inspect the evidence and decide.
Your briefAdversary’s briefPage 5
Provided that the landlord received written notice and a reasonable opportunity to act, [a] tenant may recover the reasonable cost of emergency repairs
Cedar Arcade LLC v Lorne Studio Inc., 221 AD3d 705, 708 [1st Dept 2023].
The cited sourcePage 708
A tenant may recover the reasonable cost of emergency repairs if the landlord received written notice and a reasonable opportunity to act.
Fictional opinion · surrounding words retained
Section 1 / Text facts
Illustrated text result.
The quotation ends before the condition. Its words, citation and pin cite match. The ending is a visible boundary, not an unmarked internal cut. The bracketed lowercase is a conventional marked alteration and passes the text check.
Brief p. 5 · Source p. 708 · Report p. 2
Section 2 / Advisory
Checked · notes attached · illustrated
The brief preserves the condition in its own words.
The quotation stops before the condition, and the brief expressly retains that condition. The omitted words remain visible here: “if the landlord received written notice and a reasonable opportunity to act.”
Green means checked, with notes showing the work. The note quotes the omitted condition. A marked condition drop is not a Section 1 failure. This example is authored.
Finding 3 · Report page 5
Keep the qualification visible. You still decide whether the notice and opportunity requirements are met on your facts.
This use preserves the qualification. The finding supplies no basis to call the quotation misleading; assess whether the facts satisfy the condition.
The assessment is advisory. You inspect the evidence and decide.
Review the evidence across three sections.
The Chambers Report keeps the text checks, advice about use, and paraphrase review distinct. Page references connect the brief, each finding and its source.
01Quotations & citationsVerbatim gates · text facts
02How quotations are usedAdvisory · evidence and suspicion
03ParaphrasesModel council · fidelity to the text
Chambers Report
Seven numbered illustration pages. No engine or model check ran, and no assessment is issued.
Olympus Legal Systems / AletheiaFictional illustration
Counsel’s review copy
The Chambers Report
The words. Their use. The evidence for your decision.
Quotation text, citations, pin cites and visible alterations. A concern about how a quotation is used does not undo a word-for-word match. The text results below are authored examples, not engine findings.
Finding 1 · illustratedBrief p. 4 · source p. 412
“The notice provision may be disregarded whenever performance becomes inconvenient.”
Alder Quay LLC v Mercer Lane Co., 214 AD3d 410, 412 [1st Dept 2023]. Fictional.
✓ Verified · text Words, citation and pin cite match the fictional source. No alteration or omission is present.
“[a] tenant may recover the reasonable cost of emergency repairs”
Cedar Arcade LLC v Lorne Studio Inc., 221 AD3d 705, 708 [1st Dept 2023]. Fictional.
✓ Verified · text The quotation ends before the condition. Its words, citation and pin cite match. The ending is a visible boundary, not an unmarked internal cut. The bracketed lowercase is a conventional marked alteration and passes the text check.
A properly marked omission or alteration is visible in Section 1. Its effect on meaning belongs in Section 2, including a marked omission of a negator such as “not.” An unmarked omission or change remains a Section 1 text problem.
Chambers ReportFictional illustration
Section 2 / advisory use review
Highly suspect · illustrated
Finding 1
The wrong speaker
A party’s argument is presented as the court’s holding.
In the fictional brief p. 4
The court held that “The notice provision may be disregarded whenever performance becomes inconvenient.”
In the fictional source p. 412
The tenant argues that “The notice provision may be disregarded whenever performance becomes inconvenient.” We reject that contention. The notice provision governs the requested termination.
The source identifies the tenant as the speaker and immediately rejects the contention. The words match, but the brief reverses who said them and how the court treated them.
In a live report, red appears only when a frozen deterministic gate confirms the proof. Here the proof is in the source itself: it names the tenant as the speaker and rejects the contention in the next sentence. This example is authored; no gate ran.
Before you fileWhen this is the other side’s brief
Before filing, correct the attribution and reconsider the proposition this citation is offered to support.
A possible response: the quoted sentence records the tenant’s argument, which the court rejected. Quote the next sentence back: “We reject that contention.”
Counsel decides. Read the passage in context and decide whether to revise the argument. This is an authored illustration of an advisory finding, not a live model assessment. Text check, report page 2.
Chambers ReportFictional illustration
Section 2 / advisory use review
50/50 · review needed · illustrated
Finding 2
A bracket worth reviewing
The bracket chooses a referent the passage leaves uncertain.
In the fictional brief p. 4
The decision confirms that “The managing agent told [the owner] that access would be arranged.”
In the fictional source p. 623
The owner and the contractor exchanged correspondence. The managing agent told it that access would be arranged. The letters did not identify who would receive the keys.
The bracket identifies the owner, but the surrounding passage also names the contractor. The question is what “it” refers to. The excerpt alone does not settle that question.
In a live report, orange is the category for model-only suspicion. “50/50” names the review category, not a measured probability. This example is authored; no model assessed it.
Before you fileWhen this is the other side’s brief
Before filing, inspect the full opinion before identifying the owner in brackets. Preserve the ambiguity if the source does not resolve it.
A possible response: the bracket supplies an identity the quoted passage does not establish. Ask counsel to identify the passage supporting that substitution.
Counsel decides. Check the full context before accepting or challenging the substitution. This is an authored illustration of an advisory finding, not a live model assessment. Text check, report page 2.
Chambers ReportFictional illustration
Section 2 / advisory use review
Checked · notes attached · illustrated
Finding 3
A condition made visible
The brief preserves the condition in its own words.
In the fictional brief p. 5
Provided that the landlord received written notice and a reasonable opportunity to act, “[a] tenant may recover the reasonable cost of emergency repairs”
In the fictional source p. 708
A tenant may recover the reasonable cost of emergency repairs if the landlord received written notice and a reasonable opportunity to act.
Cedar Arcade LLC v Lorne Studio Inc., 221 AD3d 705, 708 [1st Dept 2023]. Fictional authority. Source excerpt, report page 7.
What to notice
The quotation stops before the condition, and the brief expressly retains that condition. The omitted words remain visible here: “if the landlord received written notice and a reasonable opportunity to act.”
Green means checked, with notes showing the work. The note quotes the omitted condition. A marked condition drop is not a Section 1 failure. This example is authored.
Before you fileWhen this is the other side’s brief
Keep the qualification visible. You still decide whether the notice and opportunity requirements are met on your facts.
This use preserves the qualification. The finding supplies no basis to call the quotation misleading; assess whether the facts satisfy the condition.
Counsel decides. Read the retained condition against the facts of the matter. This is an authored illustration of an advisory finding, not a live model assessment. Text check, report page 2.
Chambers ReportFictional illustration
Section 3 / paraphrases
Finding 4
Beyond the quotation marks
Section 3 is the model council’s paraphrase review. These authored responses illustrate the reasoning counsel would inspect; no model ran and no fidelity verdict is issued.
Fictional brief · paraphrase p. 5
Every repair expense is recoverable, even without notice to the landlord.
Fictional source p. 708
A tenant may recover the reasonable cost of emergency repairs if the landlord received written notice and a reasonable opportunity to act.
Cedar Arcade LLC v Lorne Studio Inc., 221 AD3d 705, 708 [1st Dept 2023]. Fictional authority. Source excerpt, report page 7.
The council’s reasons, in view
Illustrative responses written for this demonstration. No models ran.
“Every repair expense” is broader than “the reasonable cost of emergency repairs.” The paraphrase removes both limits.
Illustrative reader B
“Even without notice” conflicts with the source’s express notice condition. The opportunity to act is also missing.
Illustrative reader C
The quoted passage supports a conditional right to recover. It does not support the unrestricted proposition as written.
A finding to examine
Before filing, restore the limits supported by the source or identify authority for the broader proposition. Read the full opinion before revising.
A possible response: the cited passage limits recovery to reasonable emergency repair costs, after notice and an opportunity to act. Quote that condition back and test the wider proposition.
The council provides an assessment with reasons. It does not decide the legal argument or replace counsel’s judgment.
Chambers ReportFictional illustration
Evidence accompanying the three sections
Read the source words
These excerpts, cases and reporter citations were invented for the demonstration. They are not legal authorities.
The tenant argues that “The notice provision may be disregarded whenever performance becomes inconvenient.” We reject that contention. The notice provision governs the requested termination.
The owner and the contractor exchanged correspondence. The managing agent told it that access would be arranged. The letters did not identify who would receive the keys.
Finding 5 has no source excerpt because its source was not supplied. No source page has been invented. See report page 2.
A perfect quotation can carry the wrong argument.
A party’s argument can become a supposed holding. A condition can disappear. A bracket can change the meaning. Matching the words does not answer those questions.
Section 2 groups advisory findings by suspicion. Green means checked, with notes showing the work. Orange flags uncertain or model-only concerns; “50/50” names the review category, not a measured probability. Red requires proof from a frozen deterministic gate. Each Section 1 quotation row repeats its Section 2 colour and links to that finding. The evidence stays visible; the attorney decides.
Quote the court back.
Use Aletheia to examine the adversary’s brief and its supplied sources. A Section 2 finding can provide a starting point for a response when the evidence shows a quotation being misused. Follow the located passage and any stated limits before drawing that conclusion.
Use the evidence to build your response. The finding is advice, and the argument remains yours.
Firm API preview: not yet available.
A firm integration API is planned. The endpoints below are proposed interfaces, not available services. Firm keys, RAM-backed temporary processing and rate limits require implementation and validation before release.
Custody and retention terms are pending publication.
Legal drafts and exhibits contain your clients’ most confidential matters. The hosted product’s retention, backup and deletion terms must be supplied before onboarding. This page makes no guarantee of RAM-only processing or deletion at job completion.
RAM-backed processing and a ten-minute packet expiry belong to the planned API design. The public API is not yet available, and these controls are not present service facts.
Dedicated infrastructure: Olympus is hosted on our own dedicated infrastructure.
Hosted-product design intent: Keeping client documents out of third-party model providers and model training is a design goal. Technical enforcement is not yet implemented and verified. See Trust.
Retention: Product retention, backup and deletion terms are pending publication.
Formal legal terms: For our privacy and security posture, review the Trust disclosures.
What counsel ask before a first check.
What is the starting point for access?+
The proposed starting point is the Chambers Report, with the documents and sources needed for that review. Other workspace capabilities are in development. An enquiry starts a conversation about suitability, handling terms and availability; it does not create an account.
The recorded examples include the supplied text, quotation findings, source passages and limits of the checks that ran. They use synthetic material. The available HTML and Word examples show an earlier report format; they are evidence of those recorded checks, not a promise of every future feature.
It establishes that the checked wording matches the supplied source under the recorded check. It does not establish that the authority is current, relevant or sufficient for your argument. Those remain separate questions for counsel.
What do I receive after a check?+
Chambers Report opens with a coverage advisory, then three sections: the quotations and citations against their sources; an advisory review of how each quotation is used, grouped green, orange and red; and the paraphrases, assessed by independent model readers. Brief, source and report page references connect each finding to its evidence. You decide what to change.
An unresolved source remains an unresolved finding. A failed lookup alone is not evidence that an authority is fabricated. The report should identify the missing evidence so counsel can decide what to obtain or change.
Why have more than one reader?+
Independent readings can expose a disagreement that a single answer conceals. The council demonstration shows how source passages and disagreements are handled. Its reader responses are authored examples; its recorded rule results do not measure the accuracy of a live AI review.
Who decides whether the work is ready?+
Counsel. A report supports review; it does not sign a filing, establish legal sufficiency or transfer professional responsibility. A proposed correction is something to inspect against the source before adopting it.
Where would my firm’s information go?+
The proposed access model uses a browser and a service hosted on our own dedicated infrastructure. The custody boundary, any outside services, retention and deletion terms must be documented before client onboarding. The public website’s enquiry form is separate and sends contact information to Formspree.
The design focus is New York litigation practice. A check against a supplied source does not establish coverage of a jurisdiction or court. Supported formats, authority sources and practical limits will be confirmed for the proposed workflow before access.
Where should I send a document for review?+
Please keep client documents, privileged information and matter details out of the public enquiry form. Use a general description of the work. A channel for matter documents must be agreed after access and handling terms are established.
The proposed starting point is the Chambers Report. The conversation covers scope, suitability and how information will be handled before access is offered. The intended model is browser access to a service hosted on our own dedicated infrastructure.
Only your work email is required. This enquiry does not create an account or promise an availability date.
This form sends your contact details to Formspree. Please do not include client documents, privileged information or matter details. See our Privacy Policy.
