How it works
The judgments decide what can be cited. Not the AI.
The AI writes; it never decides which cases exist. That is settled by the judgments themselves, and checked on our servers before you see a word.
Five steps. Every time, on every surface.
- 01
Find
Your facts are matched against 1,692,260 passages of the judgments’ full text. Only judgments that genuinely match make it in. If none do, it tells you so rather than inventing one.
- 02
Draft
Each section of the memo is written from the judgments it found, several at once, and arrives as soon as it is ready.
- 03
Check
Every citation is matched to the judgment’s own text. A case it cannot find there never reaches you.
- 04
Re-read
A second, independent reader goes over every point against the passage it cites, and tells you what it thinks.
- 05
Record
Every check is written down: what was verified, what was removed, and when. That record becomes the memo’s certificate.
Only step 02 is written by the AI. Every other step is a check on it.
What you see. The same passage, before and after the check.
As drafted
A sub-letting arises only when the tenant inducts a stranger, parts with possession and puts that stranger in exclusive possession of the premises [Nirmal Kanta v. Ashok Kumar · extract 13]. Occasional help from a family member, while the tenant keeps control of the shop, is not by itself parting with possession [an invented citation].
As delivered
A sub-letting arises only when the tenant inducts a stranger, parts with possession and puts that stranger in exclusive possession of the premises ✓ Nirmal Kanta v. Ashok Kumar · extract 13. Occasional help from a family member, while the tenant keeps control of the shop, is not by itself parting with possession ✕ invented citation.
The judgment’s own words · extract 13
“…a sub-tenancy or a sub-letting comes into existence when the tenant inducts a third party/stranger to the landlord into the tenanted accommodation and parts with possession thereof wholly or in part in favour of such third party and puts him in exclusive possession thereof.”
Nirmal Kanta (Dead) through LRs. v. Ashok Kumar & Anr., [2008] 5 S.C.R. 588, 28 March 2008. Extract numbers are the product’s, not the court’s paragraph numbers; print layout marks removed.