Pilots and partnerships
A pilot runs read-only beside the existing workflow. It freezes its source scope, assigns a status to each declared result, and leaves authority and interpretation decisions with named local reviewers.
Inspectable by default: LawVM itself is free and open-source software under the MIT license. A pilot agreement separately defines integration, review, support, custody, outputs, service levels, and warranties.
Choose by starting artifact
Start with source bootstrap: account for the source package and every page, keep OCR and visual/layout observations separate, test document claims one dimension at a time, and stop explicitly when the next promotion is unsupported.
Start with pre-publication QA: check targets, references, legal time, language completeness, and mutation boundaries in read-only mode.
Start with consolidation assurance: replay a bounded transition set, classify disagreement, and route every result to a named human disposition.
Choose the job
Assess what available APIs, XML, HTML, PDFs, scanned gazettes, registers, and historical versions can support. For scans, OCR remains one observation lane inside a larger documentary account.
Return: source/page inventory, claim-specific reconstruction evidence, alternatives and residuals, reviewed derivative where supported, blocked-source map, transition feasibility, and phased recommendation.
Check a frozen structured export for target, reference, legal-time, language, and mutation-boundary failures before release.
Return: source-linked findings, mutation receipts, reproducible results, and a declared observe-only or blocking disposition for human review.
Replay a source-complete transition set and compare it with the published current text.
Return: source census, transition account, classified discrepancy ledger, evidence packets, and recurring-monitor design.
Align independently derived expression states and inspect structure, citations, dates, identifiers, quantities, and missing counterparts.
Return: expression inventory, alignment account, versioned QA profile, candidates, residuals, and reviewer dispositions.
Build one evidence-producing frontend lane with local source, authority, language, and publication rules explicit.
Return: jurisdiction profile, source account, typed phase artifacts, pinned evaluation set, claim ceiling, and next assurance gate.
Choose your role
Freeze one source-complete transition corpus and comparison surface. Receive a classified consolidation-QA queue and a recurring-monitor design.
Provide every required expression and a bilingual legal reviewer. Receive an availability, alignment, invariant-fact, and residual account.
Provide a representative source sample and authority knowledge. Receive a source/page account, separate text/layout/structure evidence, explicit unresolved regions, and amendment-chain feasibility.
Define one versioned export contract. Receive read-only target, reference, temporal, language, and mutation-boundary checks.
Adjudicate source authority, local drafting idioms, language-expression questions, and candidate dispositions against a pinned review set.
Fund one bounded evidence tranche with an open artifact contract, explicit non-claims, local review capacity, and measurable promotion gates.
Pilot contract
Exact authorities, manifestations, acquisition dates, hashes, missing sources, and the legal role of every comparison surface.
The work, time interval, operation families, languages, coverage denominator, and strongest conclusion the evidence could support.
Admitted operations, rejected candidates, recoveries, failures, source pathology, manual frontiers, and unchecked units remain visible.
A named local source expert or legal reviewer resolves institutional and interpretive questions that software cannot decide.
Source-complete means every source needed for the declared work and time window is inventoried or explicitly recorded as missing. It does not mean that an entire jurisdiction is complete.
Pilot due diligence
Pilot duration and price depend on source access, corpus size, languages, and reviewer burden. The written scope must settle the following items before non-public material or operational reliance enters the work.
| Item | Public default | Agreed for the pilot |
|---|---|---|
| Execution | Local or isolated, read-only batch processing; no production writes. | Environment, access method, network boundary, and any deployment responsibility. |
| Data custody | Begin with public links or a representative non-confidential sample. | Permitted material, processors, locations, access controls, and transfer channel before any restricted data moves. |
| Retention and deletion | The website accepts no uploads and stores no assessment answers. | Which pilot copies and logs may exist, how long they remain, and how deletion or return is confirmed. |
| Software and outputs | The LawVM code is MIT-licensed; no public service-level or production-support promise is implied. | Evidence files, formats, delivery channel, support, warranty, reuse, and publication rights. |
| Human roles | A local source or legal reviewer is required for authority and interpretation questions. | Institutional sponsor, source/IT contact, reviewer, named LawVM counterpart, and decision owner. |
| Scope, time, and cost | An estimate follows representative-source review. | Corpus and transition boundary, milestones, acceptance criteria, schedule, and commercial or funded terms after source review. |
| Findings and escalation | Named human reviewers control each action. | Recipient, secure channel, disposition vocabulary, escalation owner, and disclosure approval. |
Minimum institutional commitment: a sponsor or decision owner, a source/IT contact, a local source or legal reviewer, a representative sample, and time to review dispositions. Exact schedule and cost can only follow source inspection and a written boundary.
Prepare the brief
Please do not email confidential or restricted source files. Describe the material and access constraints first so that a processing, retention, and disclosure boundary can be agreed.