A verified evidence ledger for compliance review.

The problem

When an agency releases documents under a transparency statute, someone must check every line against the law and prove every gap back to source — today, by hand, often a junior associate billing dozens of hours. For the highest-stakes matters the documents cannot leave the building, so cloud tools are disqualified at the data-governance review.

What it does

You provide a statute and the released documents. The system runs entirely on your hardware — air-gapped, with nothing phoning home — and returns a verified evidence ledger.

Each statutory requirement gets its own row. The requirement and the agency's matching (or missing) language are both quoted and anchored by byte-offset to the source document. Findings are labeled established-from-record, contested, or indeterminate — with a positive-control proof behind every “absent” claim: it shows the search would have found the thing before it reports the thing is missing.

Where the machine stops and you start

It makes factual statements: the statute requires X (here); the document says Y (here); the gap is provable, contested, or unprovable from the record. It does not decide whether a gap is a violation — that call is yours. The model is reliable at finding and citing; it is not trusted to render the legal conclusion, and the system is built so it cannot. You get a verified ledger; you assign the verdict and own the work product. The boundary is the feature.

Why it holds up

• ·Provenance on every claim — each finding traces back to specific bytes in the source documents.
• ·Fail-closed by design — when it cannot verify, it returns indeterminate rather than guessing.
• ·Positive controls gate every negative finding.
• ·A model-provenance record on every draft — which model, which version, which spans.
• ·Victim-protective by construction — it audits the structure of a withholding without ever reproducing protected content.

What it is not

Not legal research — it is not Westlaw. Not e-discovery — it sits downstream of Relativity. Not a verdict engine, and not a substitute for the lawyer. It removes the evidence-gathering labor, not the judgment.