Each request is mapped to source-backed facts and required findings posture.
Open path →Move from packet review to order posture without leaving context.
The order workbench keeps requested relief, findings checklist, source confidence, contradictions, chambers notes, draft order state, and publication posture together.
Required findings, discretionary factors, and missing support are visible as review labels.
Open path →Protected notes are visually fenced and never exported into public or party packets.
Open path →Order state tracks draft, reviewed, returned, signed, published, or reserved decision.
Open path →Order workbench fields
Every visible field is review-labeled so the route does not imply automation decides legal outcomes.
| Panel | Review label | Control point |
|---|---|---|
| Requested relief | Party request / reviewed by chambers | Judge confirms scope. |
| Finding support | Source-backed / weak / disputed | Judge reviews source confidence. |
| Draft order | Draft / reviewed / signed | Human controls publication. |
| Chambers notes | Protected | Never included in public packet. |
- No AI decision claim
- Chambers notes fenced
- Order state visible
- Source confidence linked
- Contradictions linked
Court operations can be queue-first and role-safe.
Human review remains the control point. This route is a public training record with fictional records and is not connected to a live court system.
- 1Queue-first operations
Authenticated role claims
- 2Role-safe visibility
Court assignment model
- 3Packet and audit posture
Persistence, audit, storage, and export adapters
- 4State IT configuration boundary
Configured pilot limitations
This public walkthrough uses fictional training records. It does not submit filings, change court records, provide legal advice, or connect to a live court system. Production use requires authenticated access, configured adapters, audit logging, and court-approved integration boundaries.
