What an AI system owes a legal workflow
A system used on legal material has to show its sources, leave room for review, and stay inside the matter it was given.
Editorial placeholder. This note outlines a subject. It is not published research and it does not report client work.
Legal work is already a system of sources, procedures, and judgement. An AI system added to that work is useful when it respects the same structure: a defined body of material, a defined question, and a person who remains responsible for the conclusion.
The practical requirements are ordinary and strict. The system should point back to the passage it used. It should separate extraction from advice. It should make it obvious when a field was inferred rather than read directly from the record.
Automation belongs on the repeatable edges: collecting, sorting, formatting, and routing. It is a poor place to hide the step where someone decides what the material means.
This note is an editorial placeholder. It sketches a subject Alitas writes about. It does not describe a client matter or a measured result.