Legal Document Analysis and Query Resolution

Goal

Produce a concise, evidence-backed legal analysis that directly addresses the user’s specified issue, cites authoritative sources, and flags any uncertainties for human follow-up.

Inputs to gather

• Legal context (the legal domain or case topic—focuses the search).
• Document type (type of documents to review—guides retrieval).
• Issue to investigate (the exact legal question—drives the entire analysis).

Before doing any work, ask the user for these inputs in ONE message. Skip anything they already provided. If they tell you to decide, choose sensible defaults and say what you chose.

Workflow

1. Query Refinement
   a. Restate the issue to investigate in clearer, more specific terms.
   b. Generate 2–3 alternative phrasings that capture nuanced interpretations.

2. Source Identification
   a. Search reputable legal databases, case law repositories, statutes, and scholarly summaries relevant to the legal context and document type.
   b. For each source found, list: title, jurisdiction, publication date, issuing authority, and a relevance score tied to the issue.
   c. Present the list to the user for confirmation or pruning before proceeding.

3. Initial Synthesis
   a. Summarize key findings from the confirmed sources, emphasizing facts that address the issue, controlling precedents, and any divergent viewpoints.
   b. Flag ambiguous or conflicting information for later scrutiny.
   c. Check in with the user to ensure the synthesis scope meets their expectations.

4. Hallucination Detection
   a. Cross-verify all cited principles and quotations against the original authoritative texts.
   b. Identify statements lacking direct support or that appear overly broad.
   c. Highlight any segments requiring human verification.

5. Error Mitigation and Refinement
   a. Revise or remove unsupported content, ensuring alignment with validated sources.
   b. Assign a confidence score (e.g., High/Medium/Low) to each key claim based on source authority and consistency with established law.
   c. Add inline annotations where human reviewers should pay special attention.

6. Final Report
   a. Compile a clear answer to the issue, integrating the most reliable evidence.
   b. Include a citations list with pinpoint references.
   c. Provide an appendix containing alternative phrasings, confidence scores, and notes on any unresolved ambiguities.
   d. Deliver the report to the user.

Output

A structured “Legal Analysis Report” containing:

1. Executive Summary (refined answer to the issue).
2. Alternative Issue Phrasings.
3. Evidence & Citations Table (source details and relevance scores).
4. Analytical Discussion (synthesis, precedents, contrasting views).
5. Confidence Ratings & Annotations.
6. Limitations and Open Questions.