Why it was built
Courts take in psychologists’ reports, caseworker reports, and similar notes as a matter of course. The writers have training, guidelines, problem definitions, and heuristics. That shapes what they notice and what they write.
An open legal test, such as the best interest of the child, a risk assessment, or professional judgment, is often defined in those subject-matter documents, not in the statute or in legal guidelines. Activating them increases the volume of material, and with it the need for agent co-work and for persistence.
Reports in the filePsychologist, caseworker, similar notes
Ordinary documents.Training and guidelinesHow the writer was taught to see the problem
The field sets the lens.Definitions and heuristicsWhat counts, what is dismissed, what is “risk”
Already in the prose.Legal conclusionThe resulting decision
Inherits the field with the statute.Deep research, then keep it
Section titled “Deep research, then keep it”Testing the writing takes the profession’s own sources: what it treats as a problem, how it defines it, which heuristics it licenses. Guidance, methods, agency material, research.
The tools put that material in the matter folder. Claims resolve to quotations. A sentence in a report can be walked back to the text that trained the writer.
That work does not live in a chat. It sits in the folder, and can join a personal or org corpus. Same pattern for any expert field; psychology and social work were the first.