Samples /
Legal /
Deep dive
/
Counterparty-question rehearsal
Deep dive — methodology
Counterparty-question rehearsal — the 5-decision reproducibility drill
Every $499 Snapshot samples five AI-driven intake decisions from a target-day and reproduces them defensibly. Not because you need them all today — because the discipline of reproducing five proves the discipline could reproduce any of them tomorrow.
The prompt the rehearsal answers
"Reproduce this AI-generated case-intake triage decision from Day 47, including the client's stated case type + injury severity + estimated value as they existed at intake-time, the AI's inputs, its triage-score output, the lane routed, the model version, and the configuration state — as a defensible record we can hand to plaintiff-class counsel, defense counsel, malpractice-carrier post-claim review, or the presiding judge."
The counterparty question — same shape whether it comes from defense counsel, plaintiff-class counsel, disciplinary counsel, or the carrier
Sample intake decisions from Day 47
| Intake ID | Triage Score | Lane | Model version | Decision hash |
|---|
| INT-002534 | 20.88 | Fast-Track Settle | case-intake-triage-v2.4.7 | cip-002534 |
| INT-002533 | 60.28 | Standard Adjuster Review | case-intake-triage-v2.4.7 | cip-002533 |
| INT-002532 | 80.52 | SIU / Fraud Review | case-intake-triage-v2.4.7 | cip-002532 |
| INT-002531 | 59.34 | Standard Adjuster Review | case-intake-triage-v2.4.7 | cip-002531 |
| INT-002525 | 57.33 | Standard Adjuster Review | case-intake-triage-v2.4.7 | cip-002525 |
What "defensibly reproduced" means
- Model version pinned. Not "the current model" — the exact software-function version deployed at intake-time.
- Input snapshot bound. Case type + injury severity + estimated value + client segment exactly as they were when the AI scored the intake.
- Decision hash bound. Cryptographic hash tying the input to the output — makes tampering detectable.
- Retention pipeline independent. The retention system that holds the decision records is not the production model itself — independence of the record from the actor being recorded.
What the rehearsal proves
All 5 sampled Day-47 intake decisions reproduced with defensible-records match. Model version pinned, decision hash cryptographically bound, input data retained via decision-provenance record. If defense counsel / plaintiff-class counsel / disciplinary counsel / carrier requests any of the ~4,969 intakes in the audit period, the same reproduction procedure applies.
Retention horizon
- Malpractice tail: typically 7+ years for legal-liability coverage
- State-specific statute-of-limitations tail: often longer for minor-plaintiff matters
- FRCP 37(e) preservation duty: from the moment litigation is reasonably anticipated through matter conclusion
- Class-action tolling: can extend the original horizon further
The rehearsal record is not a one-time exhibit — it is proof that the retention discipline is operational.
Why 5, not 500
Reproducing 500 decisions on request is a discovery-response exercise, appropriately triggered by a specific legal process. Reproducing 5 sample decisions at Snapshot time is a discipline-test: it validates that the retention pipeline works, without exhausting the audit budget on record production nobody has asked for yet.
$499 Snapshot. 3 business days.
Same 5-decision reproducibility drill on your firm's actual AI surface + counterparty-question rehearsal record.
Buy $499