The strongest test of a position is someone arguing against it.
That person is rarely free at the hour you need them. Describe the conclusion you are leaning towards, and Pilot5 tests the reasoning, the authorities, and the strongest argument against it — then shows you what survived. Five models analyse it independently. One exists only to argue the other side.
No demo to book. No sales call. Statute look-ups are free and instant.
In-house counsel · law firms · compliance · arbitrators
A real deliberation, start to finish. Question, interview, panel, verdict.
Runs where you already work
- Claude
- ChatGPT
- Cursor
- Perplexity
- Mistral · Le Chat
- Microsoft Copilot Studio
- Slack
- GitHub
- Notion
- Google Drive
- Jira
- Confluence
- Linear
- GitLab
- Stripe
- Zendesk
- Sentry
- PostgreSQL
- Zotero
- Finnhub
- EODHD
- Twelve Data
- Indian Kanoon
Legal and regulatory sources
Retrieval is citation-addressed: a provision is fetched by its citation from the body that publishes it, rather than searched for and paraphrased. That is why enacted text can be quoted word for word, and why the date it was fetched sits next to it.
Statutes & regulations
- U.S. Code
- eCFR — Code of Federal Regulations
- Federal Register
- Congress.gov
- Regulations.gov
Courts & states
- Federal & state court records
- State legislatures
Agencies
- SEC · FTC · FinCEN
- EEOC · IRS
- DOJ Antitrust
- USPTO · PCAOB
- ABA Formal Opinion 512
- Florida Bar 24-1
- California COPRAC
- NYC Bar 2024-5
- NYSBA AI Task Force
Five things one AI cannot do for legal work
Invented authority
A case that does not exist reads exactly like one that does.Enacted text is retrieved from the publisher and quoted verbatim, with the date fetched.
One reading
A single confident interpretation is the thing a legal answer must never be.Five models read it independently, then challenge each other with names hidden.
An agreeable machine
Ask whether your clause holds and it will find reasons that it holds.A Contrarian whose only mandate is to attack the interpretation.
Averaged dissent
On a contested question one model picks a side and discards the rest.The dissent is kept as a Minority Report, never averaged away.
No record
“The AI told me so” is not a position you take to a client or a regulator.Every run leaves a timestamped record you can produce.
What a deliberation looks like when the panel splits
An illustration, not a transcript. This is the kind of split a panel produces. Run one and yours arrives with a deliberation ID attached.
“Can we circulate this separation agreement to the fourteen employees in the reduction, or does it need reworking first?”
EMPLOYER-SIDE · ADEA WAIVER · GROUP TERMINATION PROGRAM · EMPLOYEES 40+
The Counsel Anthropic the waiver omits the seven-day revocation period. Unenforceable as drafted. § 626(f)(1)(G)
The Architect OpenAI the group disclosure schedule is missing too — job titles and ages of those selected and not selected. For a programme, that is the larger defect. § 626(f)(1)(H)
After cross-examination: the Counsel concedes the disclosure point outranks the clause. The Engineer xAI corrects the consideration period to forty-five days, not twenty-one, because this is a group programme. The Contrarian Qwen refuses to converge.
Minority Report Qwen “Fixing the clauses does not fix the process. If the selection criteria cannot be defended, a compliant waiver simply documents a weaker case.”
Revise before circulating: add the revocation period, build the disclosure schedule, and review the selection criteria before either.
Do not take our word for it. Run your own on a question you know well, and read how five minds handle it. Then decide what it is worth. Test it free →
What the panel refuses to average away
The limit, stated. A review that returns nothing has not cleared your document.
Pilot5 surfaces likely defects, not all of them. Every result names exactly which requirements were tested and which were never reached, so silence means something precise instead of something reassuring.
How a statutory review is scoped →The Record. “The AI told me so” is not a defense.
Someone will eventually ask how you decided: a partner, a client, a regulator. Every deliberation leaves a permanent record — five positions, the critique, every source, the dissent. Timestamped, retrievable by ID, with a SHA-256 receipt for your own systems.
Every deliberation, a record you can defend →How the panel reaches an answer
Five seats, five different labs — never two perspectives on one provider, and never dependent on a single lab. The legal panel that ran on 31 August: GPT-5.2, Claude Sonnet 4.6, Gemini 3.1 Pro, Grok 4.3 and Qwen3-235B.
Block any model. Exclude a provider in Settings and Pilot5 drops it from every round, backfilling the slot from the next-best benchmark candidate. You still get five independent perspectives.
Trust, for client work
Where your data lives
- Never a training asset — no cross-account use, no model training.
- AES-256 at rest — tables, WAL and backups; cannot be disabled.
- Right to erasure — hard delete across all tables.
- Retention published per data class.
How it flows
- Zero-retention routing — frontier models on no-retention endpoints; models without one are excluded.
- Pseudonymisation before inference — identifiers tokenised, 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.
Assessed toCSA CAIQ (STAR Level 1)CIS Controls v8 IG1NIST CSF 2.0 Full processor list and retention terms →
The law invented the adversarial method. We built Pilot5 to submit to it.
Pilot5 is a legal research and decision-support tool. It is not legal advice and it does not replace your judgment. All outputs must be reviewed by a qualified professional before any action. The deliberation shown above is an illustration, not a transcript of a real matter.