Assurance and Governance

1. Scope of the System

This system organises evidence, authorities, chronology and argument into outputs that can be checked, challenged and improved. It records provenance, review state and document lineage so that source documents remain primary and AI remains assistive.

2. AI Use Classification

Every use of AI in this system is classified into one of the following categories. The classification determines what review gates apply.

3. Human Oversight and Review Gates

Every document passes through a state machine. AI cannot modify content beyond the DRAFT stage without human approval.

• LOCKED content cannot be modified by AI. Only a human can unlock it.
• FILED content is immutable. It represents what was submitted to the court.
• Every state transition is logged with timestamp, actor, and reason.
• The reviewer checklist requires: citations checked, quotes verified, authority freshness confirmed.

4. Source Precedence and Citation Discipline

• Every material proposition is traceable to a source exhibit, authority, or order
• Exhibits use the NEXIS coding system (CA-TYPE-SEQ) for unambiguous referencing
• Authorities link to BAILII or legislation.gov.uk where available (96 authorities, 67 with verified URLs)
• The portal does not present uncited claims as established facts
• The "Ask the Case" system strips party names before analysis to prevent bias

5. Provenance and File Integrity

• Evidence files are hashed with SHA-256 for tamper detection
• The build system generates a manifest of all pages with content hashes
• The validation pipeline checks 10 categories of fact accuracy before deployment
• A pre-commit hook blocks deployment if canonical facts are wrong
• The source data flows one way: legal app data files are the source of truth, the website is a derived copy

6. Privacy, Redaction and Sensitive Data

• Third-party personal data is redacted in accordance with GDPR and UK DPA 2018
• Names of judicial officers appear because proceedings are public (open justice principle, Scott v Scott [1913] AC 417)
• Names of parties and their legal representatives appear because they are parties to public proceedings
• Employee names are used only where their conduct is directly relevant to a ground of relief and the information is already in the public court record
• The automated redaction pipeline scans all public-facing files before deployment

7. Accessibility and Accommodation by Design

This system is built by a person with ADHD and autism. Accessibility is not a compliance checkbox. It is a design principle.

• WCAG 2.1 AA compliance: keyboard navigation, skip links, focus indicators, semantic landmarks
• Progressive enhancement: core content works without JavaScript
• Print-optimised stylesheets for court bundle printing
• Reduced motion support for users who prefer it
• High contrast mode compatibility
• ADHD/ASD accommodations: clear visual hierarchy, minimal cognitive load, consistent navigation
• HMCTS Reasonable Adjustments Reference: 67862925

The Equal Treatment Bench Book (Judicial College, July 2024, February 2026 update, Chapter 3 para 26) directs judges to consider flexible arrangements for neurodivergent litigants. This system is designed to make those arrangements unnecessary by presenting information in a format that is already accessible.

8. AI Assistance Disclosure

9. Regulatory Alignment

This system is designed for the emerging assurance landscape for AI in legal services. It is not certified by any regulator. It does not claim regulatory approval. It is built to the following standards:

• Guide to Judicial Conduct (Courts and Tribunals Judiciary, July 2023): "In the case of those with a disability, care should be taken that arrangements made for and during a court hearing do not put them at a disadvantage."
• Equal Treatment Bench Book (Judicial College, July 2024, February 2026 update): Chapter 3 para 26 on adjustments for neurodivergent litigants.
• Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct (UN Human Rights Commission, 2003): Equality, competence, and diligence.
• CPR Practice Direction 1A: Participation of vulnerable parties or witnesses.
• Equality Act 2010 s.20: Duty to make reasonable adjustments.

The system separates administrative assistance (formatting, indexing, cross-referencing) from substantive legal drafting (which requires full human review). This distinction is central to responsible use of AI in legal proceedings.

10. Version and Change History

This portal is version-controlled via git. Every change is committed with a description, timestamp, and co-authorship attribution where AI assistance was used. The full change history is available in the repository.

Last updated: 30 March 2026. Portal version: 476 pages across 12 sections.

Related Pages