Original record · Finance agreement · p.6
Dealer payment: $8,750.00
The amount appears in the finance agreement and remains linked to its exact source region as Evidence E-014.
Structured intake pipeline to attorney-ready mass-arbitration casework.
16/9 Interactive Demo Stream
Own your case management software or join our guild
01 · INTAKE DATA LAYER
The intake data layer
Mass-arbitration case management is only as strong as the intake data beneath it.
At campaign scale, intake is not a form and a folder. It is the data pipeline that structures claimant answers, classifies documents, preserves source evidence, and routes complete case context into every downstream workflow.
Source 01Contract.pdfParsed + cited
Source 02Utility bills.zipFacts linked
Source 03Disclosure.pdfGap flagged
Source 04Email thread.emlTimeline added
OutputAttorney-reviewable case recordReady
Entity resolution · Live intake18 entities · 5 canonical lanes
PartyAcme Solar LLC
Date2024-03-18 · signing
Amount$48,500.00
Clause§9.2 Arbitration
Signaturep.6 · verified
Throughput
One case typeMeasure the path to attorney review
- Incoming recordMixed claimant files
- Evidence preparationCitations, gaps, firm rules
- Review queueAttorney-reviewable package
- Cycle time
- Intake → review
- Staff effort
- Hours per case
- Completeness
- Gaps before review
02 · OPERATING PATHWAY
One connected operating path
From claimant intake to attorney judgment.
OBE standardizes the repetitive preparation around legal judgment. It does not decide whether a claim should be filed, promise an outcome, or replace professional review.
01
Structured intake
Channel claimant answers, documents, communications, and missing evidence into a governed case record.
02
Document intelligence
Classify evidence and extract structured facts with stable source links.
03
Canonical facts
Reconcile competing values without erasing correction history.
04
Issue flags
Apply firm-approved case-type and jurisdictional rules.
05
Attorney work product
Assemble cited timelines, briefs, and evidence packages.
06
Governed agents
Execute approved workflows through scoped, audited tools.
Operating path
Attorney controlledPreparation becomes a reviewable case
- 01Claimant intakeFiles captured
- 02Evidence recordFacts cited
- 03Firm rulesFlags prepared
- 04Attorney reviewJudgment preserved
03 · EVIDENCE PROVENANCE
Evidence provenance
A conclusion is only useful when the source travels with it.
Material assertions remain bound to the original record, location, confidence state, and review status.
Structured assertion · E-014
Dealer payment recorded as $8,750.
Source: Finance agreement, page 6 · Location: Bounding region 6.4 · Review: Attorney pending.
Evidence provenance
Trace intactThe source travels with the fact
Dealer payment: $8,750.00
Source region 6.4$8,750.00
04 · CANONICAL FACTS
Canonical case facts
When records disagree, corrections should remain visible.
OBE reconciles extracted and manually entered information into a durable case record. The approved value is clear, while source conflicts and correction history remain available to reviewers.
01 · Intake answer
$43,000
Claimant-entered amount retained as part of the original intake record.
02 · Sales agreement
$48,500
Conflicting source preserved for reviewer comparison and correction history.
03 · Canonical value
$52,430
Finance agreement selected under the firm’s approved source-of-truth policy.
Canonical case fact
History preservedOne approved value, every source retained
Firm-approved source policy
05 · GOVERNED AGENTS
Governed AI agents
Automation with boundaries attorneys can inspect.
Agents navigate cases, retrieve evidence, prepare work product, and execute approved workflows through scoped tools. Sensitive actions remain permissioned, validated, and audited.
01Case-scoped document and tool access
02Approval gates for consequential actions
03Source validation before work product is surfaced
04Durable audit records for every agent action
09:41:08Read finance agreement, pages 1–18Allowed
09:41:12Linked assertion E-014 to source regionValidated
09:41:18Prepared issue brief for reviewDrafted
09:41:21Requested external submissionApproval required
Governed agent
Policy enforcedScoped tools. Visible actions. Human approval.
Case 0241 boundaryAssigned evidence and tools only
- Read case evidenceAllowed
- Prepare cited briefValidated
- Submit externallyApproval required
Attorney approval gateConsequential action paused
06 · EVIDENCE ARCHITECTURE
The durable evidence layer
The models will change. Your evidence and workflows should not.
OBE makes source-backed case evidence usable by firm-approved AI without separating facts from their provenance, permissions, or workflow controls.
01 · Firm systems
The operational record.
Intake, documents, matters, deadlines, and the systems your team already uses to run the firm.
02 · OBE evidence layer
The durable case context.
Canonical facts, source links, permissions, approvals, and workflow state that remain governed as tools change.
03 · Firm-approved AI
The tools your firm selects.
ChatGPT, Claude, internal agents, and compatible tools work from authorized evidence rather than disconnected copies.
Ask across an authorized caseload, find relevant matters, inspect the supporting evidence, and prepare the next step within the firm’s permissions and approval rules.
07 · CAPABILITY COMPARISON
Public capability comparison
Compare OBE with leading plaintiff platforms.
Litify and Filevine are mature systems for firm operations. OBE is differentiated at the point where unstructured claimant evidence must become a cited, reviewable case package.
| Capability | Litify | Filevine | OBE |
|---|---|---|---|
| Core case management | Native | Native | Native |
| High-volume plaintiff workflows | Strong enterprise fit | Dedicated mass-tort fit | Repeatable consumer claims |
| AI document extraction | Available | AIFields extraction | Versioned schemas |
| Source-linked evidence provenance | Not publicly documented | Document-level citations | Location-bound assertions |
| Canonical facts with correction history | Central matter fields | Data mapping | Versioned fact model |
| Firm-approved issue rules | Configurable workflows | Project workflows | Case-type rule packs |
| Arbitration-phase workflow | Not publicly documented | Not publicly documented | AAA/JAMS state model |
| Governed agent workflows | Litify ACE | LOIS workflows | Scoped tools & audits |
Based on publicly documented vendor capabilities reviewed in July 2026.
08 · CASE TYPE WEDGE
Initial case-type wedge
Built for recurring evidence patterns and individually supported claims.
001
Solar
Agreements, finance terms, disclosures, production records, and signature context.
002
Home improvement
Scope changes, contractor records, financing, inspections, and communications.
003
Consumer finance
Loan terms, fees, notices, payment history, and arbitration provisions.
09 · BENCHMARK
The first-case benchmark
Prove the throughput gain on one repeatable case type.
Start with 25–50 historical matters. Map the documents, rules, review decisions, and exceptions, then compare OBE against the firm’s current preparation process using operational metrics.
01 · Cycle time
Intake to attorney review
Measure how long a claimant record takes to become a coherent, cited case package.
02 · Labor
Staff hours per reviewed case
Track the repetitive preparation time required before legal judgment begins.
03 · Completeness
Evidence gaps found before review
Measure missing documents and unresolved facts surfaced before the case reaches an attorney.
04 · Quality
Attorney correction rate
Track corrections to extracted facts, issue flags, citations, and generated work product.
Start with one repeatable matter
Turn one case type into a measurable production system.
Bring 25–50 historical matters. We’ll map the documents, decisions, rules, and exceptions, then define the benchmark for faster, more consistent attorney review.