In one sentence
If documents are more recent than the last case analysis that ran, the assistant says so openly — and relies on the attached documents in the meantime rather than on outdated case knowledge.
Why this matters
A legal AI that quietly answers based on an outdated summary is more dangerous than one that honestly says: "I'm missing the latest information here." In ongoing cases in particular, where documents come in gradually, this is exactly the critical point.
What happens now
With every answer, the assistant compares the state of the case analysis against the most recent document. If a document isn't yet reflected in the analysis:
- the AI is given a clear instruction in its context to rely on the attached documents for the latest developments, rather than on the stored fact graph alone;
- a discreet "Case analysis out of date" notice appears in the chat, showing the number of documents not yet incorporated;
- a single click on "Update analysis" is enough to bring the fact graph up to date in the background. If an update is already running, you'll see that too.
Bringing it full circle
With this, the building blocks for cases that develop over years mesh together completely: targeted context sets, time travel to any earlier state, a recap when you pick a case back up, an automatic change digest when new documents arrive — and now the honest warning when things are out of date.
Staying honest
The comparison relies on timestamps and the recorded analysis; it does not replace the lawyer's own review of the case contents. More on this: AI transparency.
Not on board yet? For lawyers shows you how to get started.
