When legal AI is questioned, show supervision evidence.
Planisphere maps research, drafting, and review workflows, tests them inside your network, and returns a signed record for internal or external compliance.
No legal advice, no admissibility promise: the record shows what was measured, what passed, what failed, and what still needs approval.
You can’t supervise what you can’t measure.
A hosted legal AI tool is a black box. It drafts, it cites, it summarizes — and every one of those duties runs through rules that put the responsibility on the lawyer, not the vendor. Rule 1.1 demands competence in the technology you use. Rule 5.3 demands you supervise non-lawyer assistance, and a model is non-lawyer assistance. Rule 3.3 demands candor to the tribunal, which a hallucinated citation destroys. And under FRE 702 and the proposed FRE 707, a court will ask whether the AI-assisted work was reliable enough to come in at all.
None of those questions can be answered by a vendor’s marketing page or a screenshot. They require a measurement of how the tool actually behaves — taken on your fleet, repeatable by an adversary, and produced without shipping a single privileged document to anyone.
What the Law Board measures.
The Law Board points the Astrolabe at your fleet of legal AI tools and grades each one on three axes. The same measurement saves money and survives a challenge.
The smaller bill. Firms rarely run one AI tool — they run several, often with overlapping mandates a partner bought in different quarters. When the Law Board clusters them by behavior, the tools that produce the same answers collapse into the same group. Every duplicate is a license you can drop without losing a capability. The measurement names which ones.
The defensible record. The tools that survive get graded against the doctrine — and every grade is signed. When opposing counsel, a malpractice carrier, or a judge asks how you knew the tool was reliable, you have a record, not an assurance.
Proof for every output.
A legal-research or drafting tool answers. Your firm may later need to show what happened, how that answer was supervised, whether it met the reliability bar, and whether privileged matter stayed protected. Planisphere measures the tool inside your network, produces a signed record of the behavior, and lets that record cross the boundary without carrying the underlying text. When the court — or your client's audit — asks how the firm supervised its AI, this is the record you hand them.
The doctrine it maps to.
The legal version uses the same Planisphere measurement engine as the rest of the system. It shapes the evidence around legal duties: runtime contracts, doctrinal anchors, and reproducible record fields a third party can check byte-for-byte.
The audit happens in code. audit_law(...) asserts every contract before it returns, scores every doctrinal axis, and emits the record through the Port — the same boundary the School Board, the War Board, and the Med Board ship through. Want the full corpus? The complete pin-and-state reference lives at the Law corpus surface.
Next step.
The first engagement is a scoping conversation. Tool inventory, hosting topology, the matter-band profile (litigation, transactional, or both), the doctrine anchor (FRCP / ABA / FRE 707 / state-bar / firm-specific), and the target review date. We return a Phase 0 scope and an evidence-record delivery date. No client data changes hands at any stage.