Aletheia / The review
How verification works
The words, the meaning and the argument.
It does the work.
Each quotation is checked word for word against the page it cites. The passage around it is read to test whether it still means what the brief says it means. A council of independent readers weighs each paraphrase against the case itself.
It shows its work.
Every finding is set out with its source: the passage of the brief and the authority, side by side, with the reasoning stated plainly and nothing hidden.
You verify it yourself.
Aletheia changes nothing on its own. You read each finding against its source and decide what stands, what changes and what goes. The judgment, like the signature, stays yours.
Questions about the review
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.
What will I be able to inspect?
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.
What does a verified quotation establish?
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.
What happens when the source cannot be found?
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.
Which courts and file formats are supported?
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.