The authority sits beside the claim.
Primary law is fetched from the publisher's text. Analytical inference is marked separately, so confidence never masquerades as authority.
Deliberative AI for legal work
Adversarial intelligence for legal teams.
Review separation agreements. Understand contracts clause by clause. Retrieve enacted text. Pressure-test settlement positions with five models.
Review · understand · retrieve · challenge · standardize
The real Pilot5 Legal console
Start with the matter. Choose the right legal workflow.
What lawyers can do
Review separation agreements
Understand contract clauses
Test settlement positions
Retrieve enacted text
Apply firm playbooks
A different standard of answer
Designed for work that will be challenged.
A fluent answer is easy to produce. A defensible one needs the source, the opposing view, and a record of how the conclusion was reached.
The opposing view is part of the work.
Five independent perspectives analyze the question before they can influence one another. The strongest dissent stays visible.
The reasoning remains inspectable.
Every source, finding, challenge and limitation travels with the outcome. The lawyer remains the decision-maker and the reviewer of record.
Every claim should have a path back to the text.
Five legal workflows
Start with the work in front of you.
A focused tool for each task, from retrieving a statute to pressure-testing a settlement position.
Statutory review
Find what the agreement is missing.
Check a separation agreement against selected statutory requirements and see the provision behind each finding.
- Selected statutory requirements
- The provision behind each finding
- Annotated agreement in Word
Contract understanding
Get oriented in an unfamiliar contract.
See what each numbered clause does, with the source wording kept intact.
- Clause-by-clause map
- Source wording quoted verbatim
- Skipped material identified
Settlement range
See what each side must give up.
Pressure-test both positions and expose a settlement range that costs each side something.
- Five independent positions
- Statutory claims checked
- Dissent preserved
Statutory authority lookup
Retrieve the enacted text.
Paste a citation and get the publisher's own words without a generative model.
- Up to 25 citations
- Official source and retrieval date
- No generated text; unresolved stays unresolved
Firm playbook
Make the firm's position repeatable.
Add approved firm positions to the statutory baseline used in future reviews.
- Human approval required
- Statutory baseline remains
- Approved positions reused in future reviews
The position that lost the argument is not erased.
The defining Pilot5 difference
They do not merely answer. They answer one another.
Five models first form positions without seeing one another. Then they challenge assumptions, answer objections, and revise under pressure. The final view follows that argument. It is not an average of five first drafts.
01Blind first
analysis
analysis
02Anonymous
cross-critique
cross-critique
03Reasoned
revision
revision
04Synthesis +
minority report
minority report
Question under pressureLitigate the $1.2M preference claim or settle?
AThe ArchitectStructure, benchmarks, operational logic
CThe CounselEvidence, nuance, legal clarity
SThe StrategistLong-range value and trade-offs
EThe EngineerFeasibility and failure conditions
XThe ContrarianThe strongest case against consensus
Round 02 · Cross-examination
The logic of the captured legal replay, condensed from the visible model responses.E
“Build and litigate only after a six-week forensic payment audit; settle at 35 to 45 cents otherwise.”
X
“Do not assume the affirmative defenses. Attack the trustee’s prima facie §547(b) case first.”
The proposed litigation strategy now has to survive a challenge to its legal premise.
C
“A prima-facie-only attack is not a standalone strategy; quantify the ordinary-course and new-value evidence.”
The dispute is reframed around what the payment record can actually prove.
A
“Make payment timing, new-value offsets, and defense cost the settlement gates, not a fixed dollar anchor.”
What changed
The panel moved from competing legal positions to an evidence-conditioned litigation strategy. Its sharpest remaining disagreement is sent to a separate tie-breaker round.
Five independent model contexts · no shared first draftCritique → response → revision → inspectable record
Interactive product walkthrough
Watch five models test a legal position.
Open every round of a completed Chapter 7 preference dispute, from independent analysis to final synthesis.
01 · AnalyzeFive models form independent positions on the same question.
02 · ChallengeEach model tests the reasoning and assumptions of the others.
03 · ResolveA tie-breaker addresses the panel's sharpest disagreement.
04 · SynthesiseThe final view preserves sources, limits, and dissent.
What Pilot5 adds
What a single answer leaves out.
The challenge, authority, and uncertainty stay attached to the conclusion.
01
The adverse case is arguedLegal deliberations require the strongest case against the emerging view.
02
The authority can be checkedResolved citations link to publisher text. Unresolved stays unresolved.
03
The limits remain visibleSources, inference, dissent, and scope remain available for review.
The record is the product
Built for lawyer review.
See what supports the answer, what remains unresolved, and what a reviewer changed.
Claims keep their sources.
Authority and inference remain visibly separate.
Silence never means clearance.
Unresolved and unexamined issues remain explicit.
Dissent remains visible.
The strongest opposing view travels with the result.
Human decisions remain on record.
Accepted, rejected, and overridden findings carry into the review output.
Trust, for client work
Data security you can require.
Client matters carry their own duty of confidentiality. This is what governs the data behind every review.
Where your data lives
- Never a training asset. No cross-account use, no model training.
- AES-256 at rest. Tables, WAL, and backups. Encryption cannot be disabled.
- Right to erasure. Hard delete across all tables.
- Retention published per data class.
How it flows
- Zero-retention routing. Frontier models run on no-retention endpoints; models without one are excluded.
- Pseudonymization before inference. Identifiers are tokenized, then re-identified in the response.
- TLS 1.3. AES-256-GCM, forward secrecy.
What you can require
- Zero Data Retention mode. Ephemeral processing, no outcome logging.
- Every sub-processor disclosed. Role, region, transfer basis.
- In-region deployment. BYOK and sovereign hosting, on demand.
- DPA (Art. 28) under NDA.
Jurisdiction. Every review is scoped to United States law. No other jurisdiction is consulted, and no view is expressed on any other. The same disclosure travels with every deliberation record. Full processor list and retention terms ↗
Plans for legal teams
Choose capacity, not capability.
Every plan includes all five legal workflows. Choose the monthly credit allowance that matches your caseload; unused credits roll over for 12 months.
Free Authority lookup
Free Firm playbook
0.2 credits Contract understanding
0.5 credits Statutory review
~4 credits Settlement range
Pilot5 shows the credit estimate before a paid run and refunds any unused reserve when it completes. No daily caps or feature-gated plans.
See full pricing & annual rates ↗
