What the Analyzer is
The Analyzer is the structural-reasoning module of Legal Intelligence. It builds a connected model of the case (parties, witnesses, events, documents, claims, elements, evidence, and the relationships between them) and runs analyses on top of that model.
The Assistant runs the day-to-day work; the Analyzer is the depth the Assistant calls on when work shifts from procedure to structural analysis.
The connected case model
The model captures the entities a litigator already tracks. Parties. Events. Documents. Claims. Elements. Evidence. Witnesses. Dates. Jurisdictions.
It also captures the relationships between them. Which document supports which element. Which fact connects to which claim. Which witness testifies to which event.
The model is built from the case files the firm already has. No re-keying. No new data entry system. Real case files arrive in the shape they arrive in (scanned PDFs, Bates-stamped productions, native-format ESI, discovery exports); ingestion handles the messy reality and is typically the first work the Analyzer does on a new matter.
Outputs from legal-research tools (imported cases, statutes, secondary sources, treatise excerpts, briefs from prior matters) are pulled into the case workspace alongside native case files. The Analyzer traces them to claims, elements, and evidence the same way it treats native files. The firm's research tools (Westlaw, Lexis, Fastcase) keep running for finding new authority; the Analyzer reasons over what the firm pulls in.
The model lives on the firm's computer, alongside the case files. The Architecture page covers data residency in detail.
What the Analyzer does on top of the model
The Analyzer runs five kinds of analysis on the case model.
Claims-to-standards mapping.
Maps each cause of action to the legal standards it must satisfy and tracks which elements are supported, which are thin, and which are unaddressed.
Bidirectional evidence tracing.
Traces evidence to the specific elements it strengthens or weakens, in both directions.
Gap and contradiction detection.
Surfaces claims without sufficient evidentiary support, timeline inconsistencies, conflicting witness accounts, and missing documents that should exist. The Analyzer surfaces the gap; the lawyer chooses the discovery instrument that closes it.
Argument stress-testing.
Finds what supports the case theory and what undermines it. Bidirectional analysis is the default, not an opt-in.
Traceability.
Every conclusion the Analyzer produces is traceable back to the source material in the case file.
Why generic AI tools cannot tell you what they missed
Generic AI tools used for case analysis read the firm's files, pull the passages that look relevant, and write an answer from what they pulled. The lawyer does not see what the tool did not pull. When critical material is missed (a contradicting affidavit buried in a production, a prior inconsistent statement, a controlling appellate decision on an element that never came up), the answer comes back fluent and confident anyway.
The Analyzer is built differently. It works on the connected case model rather than on whatever passages were pulled in. The model defines what a complete answer looks like before any pulling happens, and the Analyzer reports what it could not find as part of the answer.
Generic AI tools tell you what they found. The Analyzer tells you what is there, what is missing, and where the case does not yet hold together.
For the architectural detail, including how the failure mode plays out on real matters and how the Analyzer's structural reasoning addresses it, see Why generic AI tools cannot tell you what they missed.
How the Analyzer relates to the Assistant
The Assistant runs the day-to-day workflows. The Analyzer is the depth layer for structural reasoning.
The Assistant calls on the Analyzer when the work shifts from procedure to analysis: claim mapping, evidence tracing, gap detection, argument stress-testing.
The same case model is shared between them. The Assistant's drafting and review-prep workflows draw on the Analyzer's structured representation of the case.
Talk to the founder
Best-fit conversations are with litigation teams looking to raise the quality and effectiveness of their work, run their practice with less stress and more control, and make complex matters more manageable.
Conversations are with the founder directly.