Regulators, quality reviewers and courts don't take an algorithm's word for it. Most AI tools give you an answer. Few give you one you can defend.
Generative AI makes drafting cheaper but signing more expensive.
Nobody will let an agent produce work that a named human signs until the record of how it was produced is better than the record that human would have left alone.
The right to explanation is in force for decisions made with AI.
The production record becomes legally discoverable. Liability, not the AI Act, is the binding pressure — and liability is record-shaped.
Stop evaluating AI systems on output quality alone. Demand the record.
A record that holds where a signature is a legal act holds anywhere someone signs.
Six dimensions, scored before the gate. The reviewer sees the scores beside the evidence.
Illustrative. Weak work never spends a reviewer's attention — it goes back to the workforce before a human ever sees it.
Qualified, by name. Sees the evidence pack and the scores — not just the conclusion.
Approve to the record, or send back with reasons. Both paths are real.
Who disagreed, why, and what would flip it — a structured field on the record. If dissent is never on the record, review is theater.
Runtime breakers stop a bad trajectory before it reaches your reviewer.
The work itself — a section, a dossier, a memo — with nothing hidden behind it.
Every source attached; every gap marked instead of filled, so reviewers spot-check instead of re-deriving.
The one artifact no drafting tool produces. Tenant-scoped, exportable, permanently yours.
Skeptics make the best reviewers — and reviewers are who we built this for. Put the first record on your own work.