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.
Moot your case before you commit to it. Free to start, no card needed. Try it free
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.
Primary law, from the publisher
Read where the law is published.
For the countries listed here, each review searches the official sources of its own jurisdiction and quotes them in the publisher's own text. These are the 43 legal sources the panel can read from. The full sources library ↗
Statutes, codes and regulations
- USUnited States Code
- USCode of Federal Regulations (eCFR)
- USFederal Register
- FRLégifrance
- FRJournal officiel
- EUEUR-Lex
- ROPortal Legislativ
- ARInfoLEG
- INIndia Code
- USCalifornia Codes
- USDelaware Code
- FRBOFiP-Impôts
- ROCamera Deputaților
- INReserve Bank of India Directions
- USFlorida Statutes
- USIllinois Compiled Statutes
- FRCirculaires et instructions
- USWashington RCW
- USCode of Virginia
- USMassachusetts General Laws
- USOhio Revised Code
- USMinnesota Statutes
- USNorth Carolina General Statutes
- USArizona Revised Statutes
- USMissouri Revised Statutes
- USOregon Revised Statutes
- USWisconsin Statutes
- USSouth Carolina Code
- USSouth Dakota Codified Laws
- USRhode Island General Laws
- USD.C. Code
Courts and authorities
- USCourtListener
- FRCour de cassation
- EUCourt of Justice of the European Union
- ROÎnalta Curte de Casație și Justiție
- ARSAIJ
- INSupreme Court of India
- FRConseil d'État
- CoEEuropean Court of Human Rights (HUDOC)
- ROPortalul instanțelor de judecată
- FRConseil constitutionnel
- ROANAF
- USFederal Trade Commission
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. Deleting your account erases all of its content.
- Retention published per data class.
How it flows
- Zero-retention routing. In legal deliberations, the panel and The Expert run only on no-retention endpoints; models without one are excluded.
- Pseudonymization before the panel's analysis. Identifiers in your question and documents 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), signed on request.
Jurisdiction. Every review is scoped to one jurisdiction and names it in the record. For the jurisdictions listed above, its legal sources are that jurisdiction's own. The same disclosure travels with every deliberation record. See the sources ↑ 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
Up to 7.5 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 ↗
