Last Will & Testament
ConsistentDeterministic assembly from the approved clause blocks · 3 laws relied on · the firm's variants: 1 applied, 0 given to the model draft, 1 not applied
The sample matter
One Florida matter, start to finish
A fictional estate plan walked through the firm platform: the clients' instructions, the sources, where the record disagrees, drafting, the Opposing Counsel Pass, the decisions, the approved packet — and what happens when something changes after approval.
Ana Maria Rivera and Luis Rivera · Meadow & Grove, P.A.
Sample: a fictional matter at a demonstration firm. The people, dates, documents and fingerprints are invented; every record is shown by the component the firm's console uses, given this matter's sample data — nothing is read from or written to any account, nothing is charged, and no model is called.
Chapter 1
The clients' instructions
The Riveras ask for a trust-based plan for both of them; the intake records every answer, and the conflict screen runs on every name before anyone opens the matter.
Go deeper
Each name the intake records — the clients, the guardian they choose, the people who act for them — is screened against the firm's own records: clients, prospects, adverse parties and the declined register. One name meets a declined entry; the attorney decides it is a different person, and the decision is kept with who decided and when. A name with no match is never called a clearance.
Sample
What the record shows
The intake's conflict screen, as the attorney reads it.
At intake · 2026-09-08 14:05 UTC
Findings- as the clientNo match in the firm's records
No match in the firm's own records — this is not a conflict clearance; the attorney's determination is still to be recorded.
- as the clientNo match in the firm's records
No match in the firm's own records — this is not a conflict clearance; the attorney's determination is still to be recorded.
- as another partyDeclined by the firm
Elena M. Ortiz · On the declined register — declined by the firm on 2025-11-03 (a business dispute)
Strong — the same names
Decided: A namesake — different people (2026-09-08)
How it works: Conflict screen of the firm's own records at every door · Engagement holds: an attorney decides each finding, then clears the hold
Chapter 2
The sources — and the one that is missing
The firm asks for the existing trust and the deed; the clients send both and say plainly that the 2021 amendment cannot be obtained.
Go deeper
Each item of a request is answered one of three honest ways: here it is, a question back, or I cannot obtain it. The 2019 trust and the deed arrive and are accepted; the amendment its schedule mentions does not exist in any file the clients have, and the record says so instead of going quiet. The trust's own text is read page by page; the scanned page has no text layer, so nothing on it can be cited, and the viewer says that too.
Sample
What the record shows
The clients' request as they see it — two items accepted, one they cannot obtain — and the 2019 trust's text with the passage that mentions the missing amendment.
Documents your firm asked for
Your firm lists what it needs from you here. For each item, send it, tell your attorney you can't get it, or ask what it means — asking is always fine and changes nothing.
Your existing plan and the deed to the home
From Sam Okafor · 2026-09-08
Needed by Sep 15, 2026. Your attorney set this date.
The new plan has to account for the trust you already have and for how the home is titled today.
2 of 3 accepted
- Accepted
- Ana Maria Rivera sent rivera-trust-2019.pdf · 2026-09-10
- Sam Okafor accepted it · 2026-09-11
- Accepted
- Luis Rivera sent 200 Brickell deed.pdf · 2026-09-10
- Sam Okafor accepted it · 2026-09-11
- Can't be obtained
- Ana Maria Rivera said it can't be obtained · 2026-09-11
We never received a signed copy, and the office that prepared it has closed.
Answer this item
- Ana Maria Rivera said it can't be obtained · 2026-09-11
rivera-trust-2019.pdf — version 1
Page 1
ARTICLE I This trust is the Ana Maria Rivera Revocable Living Trust, made on March 4, 2019.
Page 2
ARTICLE IV On the death of the Grantor, Luis Rivera shall serve as successor trustee.
Page 3
No text layer on this page — it was not read, and nothing on it can be cited here. Open the original to see it.
Page 4
SCHEDULE A The home at 200 Brickell Ave, Miami. As amended in 2021, the checking account at First Orange Bank.
How it works: Document requests: the firm asks, the client answers one of three honest ways, and every upload says where it stands · Sources: every document version, its text beside its original, and find-in-source
Chapter 3
Where the record disagrees
The brief puts the clients' answers beside the 2019 trust and the drafted documents — and names each place they disagree, for the attorney to decide.
Go deeper
The settlor's name in the 2019 trust carries a middle initial the answers do not; the trust's date has only one source; and one document of version 2 — drafted with the model's help — spells the backup's name differently from the answers. Nothing is corrected automatically: each difference is the attorney's to read. The firm's own clause text appears beside them: one playbook version applied, one refused by the check with its reason.
Sample
What the record shows
The brief, the differences and the package's consistency — computed by the platform's own deterministic code from the sample answers.
Matter brief
The client's own instructions as the intake recorded them — each answer verbatim, with the question it answers. Each role names the answer it comes from.
Last Will & Testament · Revocable Living Trust · Durable Power of Attorney · Healthcare Directive & Living Will · HIPAA Release & Authorization — a couples plan: the spouse's own documents are prepared from these answers with the roles reversed
Every required answer given10 elections left for the client to complete in ink
The client
Family
Who acts
- From: Primary person you trust to act for you
- From: Backup person
- From: Primary person you trust to act for you
- From: Backup person
- From: That trustee’s full name
- From: Trust protector (optional)
- None given
- From: Successor trust protector (optional)
- From: Primary person you trust to act for you
- From: Backup person
- From: Health care surrogate — full name
- From: Your backup health care surrogate
- From: Guardian for minor children (if any)
- From: Alternate guardian (optional)
What passes, and how
- None given
- None given
- Not elected — the instrument prints its blank for signing
- Not elected — the instrument prints its blank for signing
- Not elected — the instrument prints its blank for signing
The Florida home
- None given
Elections the client makes in ink
- Not elected — the instrument prints its blank for signing
- Not elected — the instrument prints its blank for signing
- Not elected — the instrument prints its blank for signing
- Not elected — the instrument prints its blank for signing
- Not elected — the instrument prints its blank for signing
- None given
- None given
- Not elected — the instrument prints its blank for signing
For the attorney
- Not elected — the instrument prints its blank for signing
Instructions, firm defaults and extracted facts
Side by side: what the client said, the firm's playbook as the current version was given it, and what the matter's documents say. A name is compared as a name; free text is never given a verdict. A firm variant never sets aside a client's instruction — one that would have is shown here, not applied.
Who made the existing trust
- The client's instruction
- From: Your full legal name
- The firm's playbook
- —
- Extracted from a document
- rivera-trust-2019.pdf · confidence 92% · not yet confirmed by an attorney
Last Will & Testament — ARTICLE XVI — GUARDIANS FOR MINOR CHILDREN
- The client's instruction
- —
- The firm's playbook
- Version 1 of the firm's variant was not applied — the library's text stands: The variant drops the client's instruction carried by {{GUARDIAN_ALT}} — keep every one the library clause uses.
- Extracted from a document
- —
Beneficiaries
- The client's instruction
- From: Who inherits, and how they share
- The firm's playbook
- —
- Extracted from a document
- rivera-trust-2019.pdf · confidence 92% · not yet confirmed by an attorney
The trust's name
- The client's instruction
- From: The name this plan gives the trust (from the client's full legal name)
- The firm's playbook
- —
- Extracted from a document
- rivera-trust-2019.pdf · confidence 92% · not yet confirmed by an attorney
Successor trustee
- The client's instruction
- From: Primary person you trust to act for you
- The firm's playbook
- —
- Extracted from a document
- rivera-trust-2019.pdf · confidence 92% · confirmed by an attorney
Last Will & Testament — ARTICLE III — PAYMENT OF CHARGES AND EXPENSES
- The client's instruction
- —
- The firm's playbook
- Version 2 of the firm's variant replaced the library's text; it keeps every instruction the client gave (checked when it was drafted).
- Extracted from a document
- —
The existing trust's date
- The client's instruction
- —
- The firm's playbook
- —
- Extracted from a document
- rivera-trust-2019.pdf · confidence 81% · not yet confirmed by an attorney
Package consistency
The current version's documents read against each other: each name the client gave, in every document that should carry it; the blanks each leaves for signing; and how each was drafted.
1 name is missing from a document that should carry it — read the documents below.
Revocable Living Trust
ConsistentDeterministic assembly from the approved clause blocks · 4 laws relied on · the firm's variants: 0 applied, 0 given to the model draft, 0 not applied
Durable Power of Attorney
ConsistentDeterministic assembly from the approved clause blocks · 5 laws relied on · the firm's variants: 0 applied, 0 given to the model draft, 0 not applied
Healthcare Directive & Living Will
ConsistentDeterministic assembly from the approved clause blocks · 6 laws relied on · the firm's variants: 0 applied, 0 given to the model draft, 0 not applied
HIPAA Release & Authorization
ConsistentDeterministic assembly from the approved clause blocks · 7 laws relied on · the firm's variants: 0 applied, 0 given to the model draft, 0 not applied
Last Will & Testament (the spouse's)
ConsistentDeterministic assembly from the approved clause blocks · 3 laws relied on · the firm's variants: 0 applied, 0 given to the model draft, 0 not applied
Revocable Living Trust (the spouse's)
ConsistentDeterministic assembly from the approved clause blocks · 4 laws relied on · the firm's variants: 0 applied, 0 given to the model draft, 0 not applied
Durable Power of Attorney (the spouse's)
1 name not foundModel draft (Opus 5) over the approved clause blocks · 5 laws relied on · the firm's variants: 0 applied, 0 given to the model draft, 0 not applied
Healthcare Directive & Living Will (the spouse's)
ConsistentDeterministic assembly from the approved clause blocks · 6 laws relied on · the firm's variants: 0 applied, 0 given to the model draft, 0 not applied
HIPAA Release & Authorization (the spouse's)
ConsistentDeterministic assembly from the approved clause blocks · 7 laws relied on · the firm's variants: 0 applied, 0 given to the model draft, 0 not applied
How it works: Estate-plan brief: the client's instructions, the differences with the firm's playbook and the extracted facts, and the package read against itself · Firm playbook: the firm's own clause text, approved version by version — never over the client's instructions
Chapter 4
Drafting and revision
The documents are assembled from the firm's masters and the clients' answers; version 3 fixes the misspelled name, and every revision decision is kept against its exact base.
Go deeper
The clause library assembles each instrument deterministically; the bounded drafter may only rephrase within the operative-text cage, and a draft it touched says so. Each redline decision — accept, reject, or the attorney's own text — is kept with its reason (the firm's playbook, the client's instruction, what the law requires, or the attorney's judgment), and the clean final is built only from those decisions.
Sample
What the record shows
What the engine received for the review of version 2, and what it did not.
Workspace run — the review of version 2, Opus 5
What the engines received — and what they did not
Inputs, by fingerprint
- Document
- 5b5b5b5b5b5b… · 41,200 characters
- Context
- 6c6c6c6c6c6c… · 214 characters
- claude-opus-5 · result 4a4a4a4a4a4a…
Given to the engines (1)
- Revocable Living Trust — Ana Maria Rivera (version 2) — 41,200 of 41,200 characters · The version's own document, given by the server — never text a browser supplied.
Left out (1)
- 200 Brickell deed.pdf — On the matter but not part of this run — the engine did not see it.
Cited authorities — five separate checks
§ 732.4015 · Opus 5
- Pass: Primary source on record in the source-locked Florida corpus.
- Pass: The quoted words match the section's text byte for byte.
- Pass: In the current corpus.
- Not assessed: No change is recorded for this section; treatment is the attorney's judgment.
- Not assessed: Applicability is the attorney's judgment.
Quotations in the result
- Opus 5: “The home at 200 Brickell Ave, Miami” — found in the document
Parts of the document the engine did not reach (0 of 3)
Every part was quoted or named in the result.
How it works: Firm drafting engines (caged drafter, draft support, letter studio) · Revision memory: every redline decision kept against its exact base, and a tracked Word file that matches the final · Coverage manifests on every workspace run
Chapter 5
The Opposing Counsel Pass on version 2
The attorney runs the Opposing Counsel Pass on version 2: the findings come back for decision, and none changes a word by itself.
Go deeper
The pass reads a document the way a challenger would. Each finding is approved, answered with a revision, or recorded as not applying — by the attorney, with the reason. The run is bound to the version it read, so a run on version 2 is never shown as a review of version 3.
Sample
What the record shows
The pass on the example matter, in its four states.
Inspect the example
The Opposing Counsel Pass
In the record
How: The findings decision rail
For review
How: The findings decision rail
Not cleared
How: The findings decision rail's live count
The pass reads the document the way an opposing lawyer would. It knows nothing outside the document, and every finding is the attorney's to decide.
From the Rivera family's estate plan — a fictional matter at Meadow & Grove, P.A., a demonstration firm. Sample data only.
How it works: Estate-plan review and the Opposing Counsel Pass, run explicitly on a version's documents · Firm workstation review · OCP · redline · cite-check (Opus 5)
Chapter 6
Decisions — the clients' and the attorney's
The firm puts one question to the clients, who answer it once; then an attorney decides version 3 is ready and authorizes its delivery from a receipt of exactly what was reviewed.
Go deeper
A decision put to a client is answered once — the same answer sent again records nothing, and a different one is refused; the answer reaches the attorney through one notice. The attorney records the decision on version 3 in the workstation; delivering it is a separate act that shows a receipt first — the version, the fingerprint of what was reviewed, the counts and who the act reaches — confirmed once, with a single-use approval bound to that fingerprint. Try both below — answer as the clients would, then authorize the delivery: in this sample, nothing leaves your browser.
Sample
What the record shows
The question as the clients see it, and the delivery of version 3 waiting on the attorney — both live in this sample, and neither leaves your browser.
Decisions your firm asked you to make
Your attorney wrote each question and its choices. Choose one — you can add a note to explain. Each decision is answered once.
Who should be the guardian of Sofia and Mateo if neither of you can serve?
Waiting for your answerAsked by Jordan Ellis, Esq. on Sep 15, 2026
The plan names a first choice and an alternate. The alternate serves only if the first choice cannot.
Please answer by Sep 17, 2026.
Approved delivery
Delivers the exact approved version to the client’s portal and sends them a notice carrying its fingerprint. It is a separate act from any export: working copies stay available and labelled, and are never a delivery. Every delivery rides on the attorney decision for that exact version.
Delivery record
Nothing delivered yet
How it works: Decisions answered once, and where things stand in the attorney's own words · Revision-bound approvals and approved delivery
Chapter 7
The approved packet
Version 3 is delivered to the clients' portal with a notice carrying its fingerprint; the attorney tells them, in plain words, what happens next.
Go deeper
Delivery is its own act: it seals the exact approved version, records the authorization and the notice's provider receipt, and never treats an export or a payment as a delivery. Anyone can later check a sealed document's bytes at /verify — or offline, with the published verifier — and a match proves only that the bytes are the sealed version's bytes.
Sample
What the record shows
The receipt the delivery spent, and what the clients read in their portal.
Approval receipts
Each consequential act on this matter, bound to the exact state the approver reviewed (the digest) — ids, versions and counts only.
Confirmed receipt: Authorize delivery to the client
spent 2026-09-18 15:01 UTC- Subject
- Complete Estate Plan — the Riveras · v3
- Reviewed state
- sha256 9f9f9f9f…9f9f9f
- Content
- sha256 e3e3e3e3…e3e3e3
- Counts
- documents: 10 · plan-check errors: 0 · plan-check warnings: 0 · prior deliveries: 0
- Reaches
- the matter's clients, the clients' portal
- Decision
- deliver
Where things stand
Your attorney's own account of your matter: what has happened, and what comes next.
Your plan was approved on September 18 and is in your portal: the wills, the trust, the powers of attorney, the health care directives and the HIPAA releases — version 3. Sign them with two witnesses and a notary at our office; the signing instructions are with each document. Nothing else is needed from you until then.
Check a sealed document's bytes yourself: /verify, or the offline verifier with its published sample.
How it works: Revision-bound approvals and approved delivery · The chained record, verification manifests, the decision packet and the file hand-over · Public verification: /verify, the offline verifier and the trust root
Chapter 8
A later change
Two weeks later the clients name a new health care agent: version 4 is drafted — and the approval of version 3 does not carry over to it.
Go deeper
The approval was bound to version 3's fingerprint, so it cannot approve version 4: confirming it is refused with the reason, and the new version goes to the attorney first. What the clients already received stays exactly what it was — a shared link keeps giving version 3 — and the record of what each piece of work rested on names what the change reaches, for the attorney to keep or update. Nothing is redrafted automatically.
Sample
What the record shows
The approval that a later version leaves behind.
You are about to: Authorize delivery to the client
- Subject
- Complete Estate Plan — the Riveras · v4
- Reviewed state
- sha256 b4b4b4b4…b4b4b4
- Content
- sha256 c4c4c4c4…c4c4c4
- Counts
- documents: 10 · plan-check errors: 0 · plan-check warnings: 0 · prior deliveries: 1
- Reaches
- the matter's clients, the clients' portal
- Decision
- deliver
This changed since you reviewed it. Review the current version and confirm again.
How it works: Revision-bound approvals and approved delivery · Source-change impact: what each piece of work rested on, and what to review when that changes · Pinned shares: a share's link gives exactly the version that was shared
Run your own matters this way
Create your firm's workspace — nothing is charged at signup — or read everything a buyer needs first.