Legal research precedent change propagation
Concentrate professional review where confirmed changes matter.
- For
- Professional support lawyers
- Solves
- A reviewed authority update is not reflected across dependent firm materials.
- Delivers
- Lawyer-reviewed knowledge update plan
- Built in
- about 5 weeks of creation time, MVP in 6 days
- Investment
- $25,000 for the MVP, $50,000 for the full product
- Run it
- Inside your business, or as part of your offer to clients
What it does
Concentrate professional review where confirmed changes matter.
- Map dependent internal content.
- Flag affected drafting assumptions.
- Prepare expert review queues.
- Compare the reviewed result with the recorded baseline and value assumptions.
- Capture corrections and named-owner approval before consequential use.
- Export a versioned lawyer-reviewed knowledge update plan with source references and unresolved questions.
What goes in, what comes out
- Counsel-confirmed legal updates
- Authorized knowledge graph
AI drafts, people review. Watchlist, change detection and briefing subscription.
- Lawyer-reviewed knowledge update plan
How it works
The workflow
- InStart with
Counsel-confirmed legal updates and authorized knowledge graph
- 1
Confirm the buyer's problem and scope
- 2
Collect counsel-confirmed legal updates and authorized knowledge graph
- 3
Then follow this sequence: 1
- OutFinish with
Lawyer-reviewed knowledge update plan
AI does the heavy lifting, people stay in charge
Use AI to interpret permitted inputs, suggest structured mappings and generate candidate outputs for the three stated task modules. Use deterministic code for arithmetic, schema validation, hard constraints and reproducible tests. Review source-linked explanations and uncertainty before accepting results. No autonomous legal interpretation; only qualified-confirmed source changes. A model suggestion is never a verified fact, professional decision or authorization to act.
What your team sees
Primary screens: Permitted sources and watchlist, Dated change evidence, Reviewed alert and action history. Use a watchlist with source health and last-checked dates, a chronological change feed, and a reviewable briefing editor. Display original evidence beside each alert. Let users mute irrelevant topics and record whether a change led to action. Make the task-specific outcome lawyer-reviewed knowledge update plan visible beside its evidence, review state and value baseline.
Accounts and administration
Watchlist ownership, source health, dated evidence, deduplication, topic filters, editorial review, delivery preferences and alert feedback. Add organization access boundaries, named reviewers, usage caps, data retention controls, export logs and explicit approval for external actions.
Integrations and data access
Authorized matter files, firm templates and approved legal knowledge collections. Permitted feeds, published document sources, email digests and internal briefing channels. Verify collection rights and source reliability before selling coverage commitments. Start with authorized file exchange. Validate current provider access, usage rights and schema behavior before promising a connector.
How we build it
We build with our own AI software development factory, so most implementations take days to a few weeks of creation time, not months. You see working software at every step, and exact timing depends on availability.
- 1
Scoping call
Day 1Thirty minutes on your process, your data and how you want to run it: for your own team, or for your clients. You get a fixed scope and price for the MVP.
- 2
MVP
6 daysOne buyer segment, one recurring use case; first modules: map dependent internal content; flag affected drafting assumptions. Manual review in the loop. Built by our AI software factory.
- 3
Paid pilot
7 daysAccounts, roles, review states, audit trail and the first integration, hardened for two to three paying pilot customers.
- 4
Full product
2 weeksSelf-serve onboarding, billing, monitoring and the wider integration set.
- 5
Run and improve
MonthlyWe host, monitor and improve it for a fixed monthly fee, or hand it over to your team. How the retainer works.
Why we start with an MVP
An MVP, or minimum viable product, is the smallest version that your users can actually work with. It is not a cheap version of the full solution. It is a test, built to answer the questions that decide whether the rest is worth building.
- Pick the riskiest assumption. Here: will professional support lawyers use it to solve "A reviewed authority update is not reflected across dependent firm materials"?
- Build only what tests it. One team, one use case, a few core modules. People do the rest by hand for now.
- Run a paid pilot. Agree quality and outcome thresholds before the pilot using this measure: Missed update dependencies and reviewer hours per approved change.
- Measure, then decide. Track missed update dependencies and reviewer hours per approved change; accepted-output rate; material error rate; reviewer correction time; actual repeat purchase. Then expand, change course or stop, with evidence instead of opinions.
MVP scope for this solution. Pilot scope: No autonomous legal interpretation; only qualified-confirmed source changes. Implement one approved input format, a bounded representative case set and the first two task modules: map dependent internal content; flag affected drafting assumptions. Support the third module with operator review: prepare expert review queues. Include source references, corrections, basic organization access, approval states, export and value measurement. Use managed operator assistance for unresolved exceptions. The cost estimate covers this narrow prototype, not unrestricted multi-tenant scale, complex production integrations, specialist certification or physical operations.
After the MVP. Once paid pilots prove usefulness, automate repeatable reviewed steps and add one verified source integration. Expand supported inputs and case volume only after new evaluation cases pass. Build reusable customer configurations and recurring value reports around lawyer-reviewed knowledge update plan. Retain the explicit scope boundary: No autonomous legal interpretation; only qualified-confirmed source changes.
What the build depends on. Reliable permitted source access, change history, publication dates, deduplication and editorial QA. Coverage limits and inaccessible sources must be visible. Obtain representative authorized cases, baseline measurements, qualified reviewers and a buyer-side decision owner. Specific limitation: No autonomous legal interpretation; only qualified-confirmed source changes.
Investment
A planning range to start the conversation, not a quote. You pay per phase, so you can stop after the MVP.
- Phase 1
MVP
One buyer segment, one recurring use case; first modules: map dependent internal content; flag affected drafting assumptions. Manual review in the loop.
- Phase 2
Paid pilot
Accounts, roles, review states, audit trail and the first integration, hardened for two to three paying pilot customers.
- Phase 3
Full product
Self-serve onboarding, billing, monitoring and the wider integration set.
Indicative total, MVP to full product$50,000about 5 weeks of creation time · start with the MVP from $25,000
Running costs per month
A rough indication of monthly hosting and AI model costs once it is live, not tested. Real costs depend on usage, file sizes and the models chosen.
| Stage | Hosting and infrastructure | AI usage | Total per month |
|---|---|---|---|
| MVP and paid pilotabout 3 customers | $50–$100 | $50–$100 | $100–$200 |
| Full productabout 50 customers | $190–$380 | $350–$700 | $540–$1,080 |
Run it or resell it
For your own team
Professional support lawyers run it inside the business: counsel-confirmed legal updates and authorized knowledge graph in, lawyer-reviewed knowledge update plan out, reviewed by your people.
As part of your offer
Agencies, consultancies and software companies can offer it to their own clients under their brand. We build and maintain it; you sell and deliver it.
Your brand, or this one
Run it under your own brand, or start from this concept style.
- primary
#275591 - accent
#c97f54 - surface
#e4eaf1 - ink
#22201e
- Headings
- Sora
- Text
- Work Sans
- Voice
- Precise, measured, defensible
Selling it to your own clients: the go-to-market playbook
Pricing to test
Test USD 100-500 monthly for a narrow shared briefing, or USD 750-2,500 monthly for bespoke analyst coverage. Licensed source access and unusual collection requirements are extra. Prices require validation. Package the initial sale as one bounded lawyer-reviewed knowledge update plan. Recurring fees must specify volume, review depth and integration support. For exchanges, test a disclosed coordination or successful-service fee rather than holding customer funds. Reprice only after measuring real delivery labor; platform-build cost is separate from a commercial pilot fee.
Message to test
Concentrate professional review where confirmed changes matter. Demonstrate a concrete lawyer-reviewed knowledge update plan using the buyer's approved example and show the baseline, corrections and actual delivery effort.
Where to find buyers
Professional support lawyers professional communities; specialist consultants serving this buyer; permissioned partner introductions; practical demonstrations at relevant trade or practitioner events.
Lead magnet
A reviewed sample lawyer-reviewed knowledge update plan from a small authorized input set, with a transparent calculation of missed update dependencies and reviewer hours per approved change and no promised savings.
The first 30 days
- Week 1: interview five professional support lawyers and inspect a recent example of a reviewed authority update is not reflected across dependent firm materials.
- Week 2: prepare a consented or synthetic demonstration of the three task modules.
- Week 3: seek one bounded paid pilot with agreed baseline and acceptance criteria.
- Week 4: measure missed update dependencies and reviewer hours per approved change, reviewer effort and repeat-purchase interest. This is a demand-validation plan, not a thirty-day full-product delivery promise.
Paid pilot
Agree quality and outcome thresholds before the pilot using this measure: Missed update dependencies and reviewer hours per approved change. Continue only if the buyer accepts the actual output, the intended job outcome improves without unacceptable errors, and measured delivery cost fits willingness to pay. Revise or stop if access is unavailable, qualified review cannot be provided, or apparent savings disappear after corrections and support. Use held-out cases when comparing model quality; use a properly reviewed comparison design before making causal claims. Record missing cases and negative results alongside successful outputs.
Success metrics
Missed update dependencies and reviewer hours per approved change; accepted-output rate; material error rate; reviewer correction time; actual repeat purchase.
Retention and expansion
Repeat the workflow when the buyer again needs lawyer-reviewed knowledge update plan. Retain permissioned settings and reviewed examples, report realized value honestly, and sell increased volume or adjacent approved workflows only after contribution margin and quality remain acceptable.
Why clients would pick it
A curated source network, historical change archive and buyer-specific relevance judgments within a narrow topic. Build a permissioned library of representative task cases, reviewer corrections and verified operating constraints for professional support lawyers. Repeatable delivery and useful integrations matter more than access to a base model.
Alternatives and positioning
Newsletters, search alerts, analysts and general media or website monitoring tools. Compare this product with the buyer's present method on missed update dependencies and reviewer hours per approved change. Offer a bounded paid workflow instead of claiming broad autonomous expertise. Market uniqueness and competitor coverage are not verified.
Main delivery costs
Source licensing, collection reliability, change processing, analyst verification, missed-signal review and digest production. Additional initial validation requires representative authorized sample preparation, buyer interviews, qualified domain review and bounded validation of lawyer-reviewed knowledge update plan. Track cost per accepted output, including correction work, unsuccessful cases and support.
Safeguards
Preserve matter confidentiality, access boundaries and original evidence. Qualified professionals review legal interpretations and final client documents. No autonomous legal interpretation; only qualified-confirmed source changes. Keep all consequential actions under authorized human control and do not fabricate missing inputs, permissions, professional judgments or market evidence.