previews / research / benchmark factory

Research · Draft

A Benchmark Factory for Lawrence

Lawrence has to be shown to do legal work to an expert standard in every jurisdiction and practice area Lawhive expands into. No published benchmark measures that. This report describes a system that generates benchmark tasks on demand: a complete matter file, a task a lawyer would actually set, and success criteria grounded in that file and in the law, with the safeguards that keep each generated task legally accurate and factually coherent.

TL;DR. Existing legal benchmarks either measure the wrong thing, cover the wrong law, or cannot be inspected, so instead of adopting one the squad built a factory: a pipeline that takes a one-line task specification and a jurisdiction and produces a benchmark task in a shape of Lawhive's own, populated with a synthetic matter file in the shape of the platform's own virtual file system. Every criterion is tied to a verbatim line of the generated facts or of retrieved law, and the matter file is checked for realism, legal validity and internal consistency before release. The file carries the facts the work depends on; what it must never carry is the finished deliverable. The output is versioned and fully traceable, so a generated task can be audited line by line by a solicitor before any lawyer's time is spent on it.

1. Why a factory rather than a benchmark

Each firm Lawhive acquires brings a jurisdiction and a set of practice areas, and before Lawrence is switched on for that firm there has to be evidence that it does that firm's work to the standard of an expert. Doing this by hand has been a bottleneck even for one jurisdiction. As the number of jurisdictions grows, a fixed benchmark written once cannot keep up: the question is never "is Lawrence good at law" but "is Lawrence good at Welsh possession claims" or "at Arizona family law", and the answer has to be produced before a firm is onboarded, not after.

Deployment gating is not the only thing that suffers while evaluation is manual. Engineering changes do too. Anthropic reported removing over 80% of Claude Code's system prompt for its Claude 5 generation models with no measurable loss on their coding evaluations. Lawrence's prompts and tools may carry similar dead weight, but testing that today would cost days of hand evaluation per variant. With a benchmark, the harness can run the same tasks under different variables (a slimmer system prompt, a different model, a changed tool) and the impact of a change becomes a measurement.

The obvious shortcut is to adopt an existing benchmark. The review of the published options found none that fit, for three recurring reasons.

The review was still worth the time, because surveying the landscape settled two questions about how to score legal work at all. The first is that the useful unit is not the task but the individual claim: the benchmarks that hold up break a piece of work into many small pass/fail statements and grade each one on its own, rather than asking for a mark out of ten. The second is that those statements should describe the output and never the method, which keeps opinions about how a lawyer ought to work from leaking into the score.

Both observations carry across practice areas: the kinds of statement worth checking (a fact stated correctly, an issue identified, a drafted term present and correct, a recommendation made, a source cited, something that must not appear) barely change between corporate work and consumer work. That is what makes a generator plausible in the first place, and it is the part Lawhive has taken from the field. Everything else is built for what Lawhive actually needs: its jurisdictions, its practice areas, and an agent that works inside a matter file rather than on a folder of attachments.

Hence a factory. The unit of value is not a set of tasks but a process that, given "a section 8 possession claim in England" or "a spouse visa application", produces a task and its matter file that a solicitor in that field would recognise as real work, with criteria a judge can apply without ambiguity. The rest of this report describes that process and, for each stage, the property of the output it exists to protect.

2. What a generated task looks like

The factory's product is a self-contained bundle. Its shape is Lawhive's: a folder of attachments would not do, so the task ships with the platform's own virtual file system, the context object the agent is really given, and criteria that each record what they rest on. The excerpts and complete files below are from one bundle of the newest complete v2 round, a contested will. Each row offers the full file, for anyone who wants to read one end to end.

task.jsonThe task and its criteria

The task as a lawyer would save it on the platform: one to three plain sentences ending with the named deliverables. Deliverables are one or more documents that are genuinely produced together (an advice letter and a completed court form; a will and a letter of wishes). Then 25 to 50 atomic pass/fail criteria, each naming the deliverable it applies to and grounded by reference: fact_refs naming the fact-sheet lines it rests on by their ids, and law_refs naming the law-sheet propositions.

task.json · contested-will-advice · v2 run
{
  "instructions": "Prepare a written advice letter to Dr Elowen Marchant on the potential challenge to her mother’s 22 August 2025 will, a possible Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 claim, and the immediate protective and evidential steps. Output: `advice-letter.docx`",
  "deliverables": {
    "advice-letter.docx": "advice-letter.docx"
  },
  "form_deliverables": [],
  "criteria": [
    {
      "id": "001",
      "deliverables": [
        "advice-letter.docx"
      ],
      "match_criteria": "PASS if the advice letter identifies Dr Elowen Marchant as Miriam Celeste Marchant’s elder biological daughter and records that Miriam died on 14 February 2026. FAIL if either relationship or date is omitted or different.",
      "fact_refs": [
        "F001",
        "F021",
        "F025"
      ],
      "law_refs": []
    },
    {
      "id": "002",
      "deliverables": [
        "advice-letter.docx"
      ],
      "match_criteria": "PASS if the advice letter states that the final will is dated 22 August 2025 and was prepared by Briar & Keene Wills Ltd. FAIL if the date or will writer is omitted or different.",
      "fact_refs": [
        "F182",
        "F183"
      ],
      "law_refs": []
    },
    {
      "id": "003",
      "deliverables": [
        "advice-letter.docx"
      ],
      "match_criteria": "PASS if the advice letter states that the final will appoints Christopher “Kit” Gareth Marchant as sole executor and that he has not applied for a grant of probate. FAIL if either point is omitted or incorrect.",
      "fact_refs": [
        "F185",
        "F050"
      ],
      "law_refs": []
    }
  ]
    … 42 more
  ]
}
Show the full file · task.json (25 KB)
task.json · contested-will-advice · complete
{
  "title": "Advice on contesting Miriam Marchant’s will and possible 1975 Act claim",
  "market": "GB",
  "jurisdiction": "england-and-wales",
  "instructions": "Prepare a written advice letter to Dr Elowen Marchant on the potential challenge to her mother’s 22 August 2025 will, a possible Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 claim, and the immediate protective and evidential steps. Output: `advice-letter.docx`",
  "deliverables": {
    "advice-letter.docx": "advice-letter.docx"
  },
  "form_deliverables": [],
  "criteria": [
    {
      "id": "001",
      "deliverables": [
        "advice-letter.docx"
      ],
      "match_criteria": "PASS if the advice letter identifies Dr Elowen Marchant as Miriam Celeste Marchant’s elder biological daughter and records that Miriam died on 14 February 2026. FAIL if either relationship or date is omitted or different.",
      "fact_refs": [
        "F001",
        "F021",
        "F025"
      ],
      "law_refs": []
    },
    {
      "id": "002",
      "deliverables": [
        "advice-letter.docx"
      ],
      "match_criteria": "PASS if the advice letter states that the final will is dated 22 August 2025 and was prepared by Briar & Keene Wills Ltd. FAIL if the date or will writer is omitted or different.",
      "fact_refs": [
        "F182",
        "F183"
      ],
      "law_refs": []
    },
    {
      "id": "003",
      "deliverables": [
        "advice-letter.docx"
      ],
      "match_criteria": "PASS if the advice letter states that the final will appoints Christopher “Kit” Gareth Marchant as sole executor and that he has not applied for a grant of probate. FAIL if either point is omitted or incorrect.",
      "fact_refs": [
        "F185",
        "F050"
      ],
      "law_refs": []
    },
    {
      "id": "004",
      "deliverables": [
        "advice-letter.docx"
      ],
      "match_criteria": "PASS if the advice letter states that Elowen’s final-will provision is a £5,000 pecuniary legacy. FAIL if the gift is omitted, described as a residuary gift, or stated at a different amount.",
      "fact_refs": [
        "F190"
      ],
      "law_refs": []
    },
    {
      "id": "005",
      "deliverables": [
        "advice-letter.docx"
      ],
      "match_criteria": "PASS if the advice letter states that Ronan Elias Preece has a rent-free right to occupy 8 Quarry Bank until his death or earlier permanent departure, subject to paying utilities, council tax, insurance contributions and routine maintenance. FAIL if the duration, rent-free nature or any of those obligations is omitted or materially misstated.",
      "fact_refs": [
        "F186",
        "F187"
      ],
      "law_refs": []
    },
    {
      "id": "006",
      "deliverables": [
        "advice-letter.docx"
      ],
      "match_criteria": "PASS if the advice letter states that the residue is divided 70% to Ronan Elias Preece and 30% to Kit Marchant. FAIL if either residuary percentage or beneficiary is omitted or different.",
      "fact_refs": [
        "F193"
      ],
      "law_refs": []
    },
    {
      "id": "007",
      "deliverables": [
        "advice-letter.docx"
      ],
      "match_criteria": "PASS if the advice letter contrasts the 2018 will’s equal residuary division between Elowen and Kit with the 2025 will’s £5,000 pecuniary legacy to Elowen and division of residue 70% to Ronan and 30% to Kit. FAIL if either side of that contrast is omitted or materially misstated.",
      "fact_refs": [
        "F166",
        "F169",
        "F190",
        "F193"
      ],
      "law_refs": []
    },
    {
      "id": "008",
      "deliverables": [
        "advice-letter.docx"
      ],
      "match_criteria": "PASS if the advice letter records that the signed original 2025 will has not been provided to Elowen and that she has received only an unsigned copy. FAIL if this evidence gap is omitted or the original is said to have been provided.",
      "fact_refs": [
        "F205",
        "F219"
      ],
      "law_refs": []
    },
    {
      "id": "009",
      "deliverables": [
        "advice-letter.docx"
      ],
      "match_criteria": "PASS if the advice letter explains that valid execution requires a will to be in writing; signed by the testator or by another person in the testator’s presence and at the testator’s direction; with the signature intended to give effect to the will; signed or acknowledged by the testator in the simultaneous presence of at least two witnesses; and each witness signing, attesting or acknowledging a signature in the testator’s presence. FAIL if any of those cumulative requirements is omitted or materially misstated.",
      "fact_refs": [],
      "law_refs": [
        "L02"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "010",
      "deliverables": [
        "advice-letter.docx"
      ],
      "match_criteria": "PASS if the advice letter identifies Lydia Faye Quill and Darren Michael Sallow as the two stated attesting witnesses and says their execution evidence should be obtained. FAIL if either witness is omitted, a different witness is named, or no recommendation to obtain their evidence is made.",
      "fact_refs": [
        "F198",
        "F199"
      ],
      "law_refs": [
        "L04",
        "L19"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "011",
      "deliverables": [
        "advice-letter.docx"
      ],
      "match_criteria": "PASS if the advice letter does not assert that the 2025 will was invalidly executed, but explains that the original will and evidence of the signing sequence must be obtained before reaching a conclusion. FAIL if it concludes on the present material that execution was invalid.",
      "fact_refs": [
        "F197",
        "F198",
        "F202",
        "F219"
      ],
      "law_refs": [
        "L02",
        "L10"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "012",
      "deliverables": [
        "advice-letter.docx"
      ],
      "match_criteria": "PASS if the advice letter explains that the Banks v Goodfellow testamentary-capacity test, rather than the Mental Capacity Act 2005 test, governs validity of the will. FAIL if the governing test is omitted or the Mental Capacity Act 2005 is presented as the governing testamentary test.",
      "fact_refs": [],
      "law_refs": [
        "L15"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "013",
      "deliverables": [
        "advice-letter.docx"
      ],
      "match_criteria": "PASS if the advice letter explains that capacity is assessed at the execution date, namely 22 August 2025, rather than merely at death. FAIL if the execution-date focus is omitted or capacity is assessed solely by reference to death.",
      "fact_refs": [
        "F182",
        "F197",
        "F025"
      ],
      "law_refs": [
        "L18"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "014",
      "deliverables": [
        "advice-letter.docx"
      ],
      "match_criteria": "PASS if the advice letter identifies the November 2023 memory-clinic findings, mild vascular-dementia diagnosis, and August 2025 execution timing as material evidence capable of raising a capacity issue requiring investigation. FAIL if these facts are not connected to the capacity inquiry.",
      "fact_refs": [
        "F127",
        "F128",
        "F182"
      ],
      "law_refs": [
        "L20",
        "L30"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "015",
      "deliverables": [
        "advice-letter.docx"
      ],
      "match_criteria": "PASS if the advice letter gives a balanced capacity assessment: the cognitive history and change from the earlier wills warrant investigation, but dementia or an unusual disposition alone does not establish incapacity. FAIL if it treats the diagnosis or the unequal disposition alone as proving incapacity.",
      "fact_refs": [
        "F127",
        "F128",
        "F169",
        "F193"
      ],
      "law_refs": [
        "L21",
        "L23",
        "L24"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "016",
      "deliverables": [
        "advice-letter.docx"
      ],
      "match_criteria": "PASS if the advice letter explains that, if the will was duly executed and rational on its face, capacity is presumed unless Elowen raises a real doubt, after which the evidential burden returns to the will’s propounder. FAIL if this burden sequence is omitted or materially misstated.",
      "fact_refs": [],
      "law_refs": [
        "L11",
        "L12",
        "L13"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "017",
      "deliverables": [
        "advice-letter.docx"
      ],
      "match_criteria": "PASS if the advice letter recommends obtaining GP, hospital, memory-clinic and medication records, together with any available care records, focused on the period surrounding 22 August 2025. FAIL if it does not recommend contemporaneous medical and care evidence focused on the execution period.",
      "fact_refs": [
        "F111",
        "F127",
        "F128",
        "F132",
        "F133",
        "F134",
        "F135",
        "F136",
        "F182",
        "F214",
        "F215",
        "F216"
      ],
      "law_refs": [
        "L19",
        "L20",
        "L30"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "018",
      "deliverables": [
        "advice-letter.docx"
      ],
      "match_criteria": "PASS if the advice letter recommends seeking Briar & Keene Wills Ltd’s complete will-preparation file, including instructions, attendance notes, drafts, correspondence, capacity material and execution arrangements. FAIL if the will file is not requested with these core categories of material.",
      "fact_refs": [
        "F207",
        "F208",
        "F212",
        "F214",
        "F215",
        "F216",
        "F217",
        "F218"
      ],
      "law_refs": [
        "L25",
        "L26"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "019",
      "deliverables": [
        "advice-letter.docx"
      ],
      "match_criteria": "PASS if the advice letter explains that the lack of a known medical assessment or attendance notes is not itself proof of invalidity, although it may leave limited contemporaneous evidence and should be investigated. FAIL if it says that non-compliance with the golden rule automatically invalidates the will.",
      "fact_refs": [
        "F214",
        "F215",
        "F216",
        "F217"
      ],
      "law_refs": [
        "L26",
        "L27",
        "L28",
        "L29"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "020",
      "deliverables": [
        "advice-letter.docx"
      ],
      "match_criteria": "PASS if the advice letter identifies lack of knowledge and approval as a distinct possible validity issue requiring the will writer’s evidence about what Miriam was told, understood and approved. FAIL if knowledge and approval is omitted or conflated solely with testamentary capacity.",
      "fact_refs": [
        "F211",
        "F212",
        "F217",
        "F218"
      ],
      "law_refs": [
        "L10",
        "L14",
        "L25"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "021",
      "deliverables": [
        "advice-letter.docx"
      ],
      "match_criteria": "PASS if the advice letter identifies the evidence of Ronan’s gatekeeping, his role in arranging the will-writer appointment, and the abrupt departure from prior equal provision as relevant circumstantial material for undue influence. FAIL if those matters are not identified as potentially relevant circumstantial evidence.",
      "fact_refs": [
        "F156",
        "F158",
        "F159",
        "F160",
        "F169",
        "F193",
        "F209",
        "F213"
      ],
      "law_refs": [
        "L34"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "022",
      "deliverables": [
        "advice-letter.docx"
      ],
      "match_criteria": "PASS if the advice letter explains that testamentary undue influence requires proof of coercion and that opportunity, dependency, control, persuasion or an unfair result alone is insufficient. FAIL if it advises that those matters alone establish undue influence.",
      "fact_refs": [],
      "law_refs": [
        "L31",
        "L32",
        "L33"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "023",
      "deliverables": [
        "advice-letter.docx"
      ],
      "match_criteria": "PASS if the advice letter identifies Patience Dacre as a potential witness and accurately records her account that Miriam said in summer 2025 that Ronan and Kit kept telling her Elowen only wanted her money. FAIL if the witness or the substance of the reported statement is omitted or materially misstated.",
      "fact_refs": [
        "F092",
        "F095"
      ],
      "law_refs": [
        "L19",
        "L34"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "024",
      "deliverables": [
        "advice-letter.docx"
      ],
      "match_criteria": "PASS if the advice letter explains that if the 2025 will is pronounced invalid, the 2018 will does not automatically revive and its continuing validity and revocation status must be established; otherwise intestacy may apply. FAIL if it states that the 2018 will automatically takes effect merely because the 2025 will fails.",
      "fact_refs": [
        "F166",
        "F184"
      ],
      "law_refs": [
        "L41",
        "L42"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "025",
      "deliverables": [
        "advice-letter.docx"
      ],
      "match_criteria": "PASS if the advice letter states that Elowen, as Miriam’s child, is within the child category for a potential Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 claim, subject to the deceased having died domiciled in England and Wales. FAIL if it says Elowen must first prove that Miriam maintained her, or overlooks the domicile condition.",
      "fact_refs": [
        "F001",
        "F021"
      ],
      "law_refs": [
        "L01",
        "L50",
        "L63"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "026",
      "deliverables": [
        "advice-letter.docx"
      ],
      "match_criteria": "PASS if the advice letter explains that an adult child’s 1975 Act provision is limited to reasonable maintenance and is not an automatic entitlement to a fair or equal inheritance. FAIL if it presents the claim as an entitlement to equalise the inheritance.",
      "fact_refs": [
        "F164",
        "F169",
        "F190"
      ],
      "law_refs": [
        "L51",
        "L52",
        "L53"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "027",
      "deliverables": [
        "advice-letter.docx"
      ],
      "match_criteria": "PASS if the advice letter assesses Elowen’s financial circumstances by referring to her approximate £2,860 net monthly income, her reduced four-day work due to recurring back pain, and the £1,026 monthly joint mortgage payment. FAIL if these financial circumstances are omitted or materially misstated.",
      "fact_refs": [
        "F007",
        "F008",
        "F009",
        "F240"
      ],
      "law_refs": [
        "L55",
        "L57",
        "L58"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "028",
      "deliverables": [
        "advice-letter.docx"
      ],
      "match_criteria": "PASS if, when assessing Elowen’s needs, the advice letter addresses Rhodri’s estimated net drawings of £21,000 for the year ending 5 April 2026, their substantial fluctuation since late 2024, Elowen’s personal-loan balance of approximately £8,400, and Rhodri’s unpaid self-assessment tax of £6,200 due in January 2027. FAIL if any of those matters is omitted or materially misstated.",
      "fact_refs": [
        "F013",
        "F014",
        "F241",
        "F243"
      ],
      "law_refs": [
        "L55",
        "L57",
        "L58"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "029",
      "deliverables": [
        "advice-letter.docx"
      ],
      "match_criteria": "PASS if the advice letter gives a balanced preliminary assessment that Elowen has arguable maintenance-based factors but that her earnings, jointly owned home and £5,000 legacy may limit the strength or value of a 1975 Act claim. FAIL if it guarantees a substantial award or says financial need is irrelevant.",
      "fact_refs": [
        "F007",
        "F190",
        "F236",
        "F237",
        "F239",
        "F241"
      ],
      "law_refs": [
        "L51",
        "L53",
        "L55",
        "L58",
        "L59"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "030",
      "deliverables": [
        "advice-letter.docx"
      ],
      "match_criteria": "PASS if the advice letter identifies the competing position of Ronan as long-term unmarried partner and principal informal carer, including his lifetime occupation right, as relevant to the statutory balancing exercise. FAIL if Ronan’s competing circumstances are omitted from that exercise.",
      "fact_refs": [
        "F062",
        "F067",
        "F080",
        "F186"
      ],
      "law_refs": [
        "L55",
        "L58"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "031",
      "deliverables": [
        "advice-letter.docx"
      ],
      "match_criteria": "PASS if the advice letter identifies the principal stated estate assets as 8 Quarry Bank, appraised at £620,000–£650,000; the sole Barclays current account of approximately £12,400; the sole Barclays savings account of approximately £19,600; the NS&I Income Bond of approximately £48,000; and the Stocks and Shares ISA valued at approximately £96,500, while noting that Ronan’s occupation right may prevent an immediate vacant-possession sale of the house. FAIL if any stated asset or value, the property appraisal range, or the occupation-right constraint is omitted or materially misstated.",
      "fact_refs": [
        "F244",
        "F246",
        "F248",
        "F249",
        "F250",
        "F251",
        "F252"
      ],
      "law_refs": [
        "L48",
        "L55"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "032",
      "deliverables": [
        "advice-letter.docx"
      ],
      "match_criteria": "PASS if the advice letter recommends investigating the £38,000 transfer to the joint Barclays account and states that the balance of that joint account at death is unknown to Elowen. FAIL if the transfer or the unknown balance is omitted or a known death balance is invented.",
      "fact_refs": [
        "F262",
        "F263",
        "F265"
      ],
      "law_refs": [
        "L49"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "033",
      "deliverables": [
        "advice-letter.docx"
      ],
      "match_criteria": "PASS if the advice letter recommends investigating the £12,500 payment to Ronan labelled “carer support” and the £6,000 payment to Kit labelled “roof deposit”, including supporting records. FAIL if both payments are not identified for investigation.",
      "fact_refs": [
        "F273",
        "F274",
        "F058",
        "F059",
        "F061"
      ],
      "law_refs": []
    },
    {
      "id": "034",
      "deliverables": [
        "advice-letter.docx"
      ],
      "match_criteria": "PASS if the advice letter recommends immediate entry of a caveat to prevent a grant being sealed while there is a genuine probate dispute, and accurately states that it ordinarily lasts six months and does not prevent a grant sealed on the same day. FAIL if the caveat recommendation or either stated limitation is omitted or incorrect.",
      "fact_refs": [
        "F050",
        "F279",
        "F281"
      ],
      "law_refs": [
        "L64",
        "L65",
        "L66"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "035",
      "deliverables": [
        "advice-letter.docx"
      ],
      "match_criteria": "PASS if the advice letter explains that, if a warning is served and Elowen wishes to maintain the caveat by asserting a contrary interest, she must enter an appearance within 14 days after service unless the relevant summons-for-directions exception applies. FAIL if the 14-day period, the service trigger, or the qualification concerning maintenance of the caveat is omitted or materially misstated.",
      "fact_refs": [],
      "law_refs": [
        "L67",
        "L68"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "036",
      "deliverables": [
        "advice-letter.docx"
      ],
      "match_criteria": "PASS if the advice letter recommends a written non-distribution and preservation request to Kit as executor, covering estate assets, the original will, the will-writing file and relevant digital and financial evidence. FAIL if no written preservation/non-distribution step is recommended.",
      "fact_refs": [
        "F185",
        "F219",
        "F280",
        "F281"
      ],
      "law_refs": [
        "L19",
        "L25",
        "L79"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "037",
      "deliverables": [
        "advice-letter.docx"
      ],
      "match_criteria": "PASS if the advice letter states that a 1975 Act claim must normally be made within six months of the first grant of representation and may be issued before a grant. FAIL if the deadline is calculated from death or the ability to issue before grant is omitted.",
      "fact_refs": [
        "F050"
      ],
      "law_refs": [
        "L75"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "038",
      "deliverables": [
        "advice-letter.docx"
      ],
      "match_criteria": "PASS if the advice letter identifies the available 1975 Act remedies as including a lump sum, periodical payments, transfer or settlement of property, and variation of relevant estate trusts. FAIL if it says the court can only award a cash legacy or omits the range of remedies.",
      "fact_refs": [],
      "law_refs": [
        "L80",
        "L81"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "039",
      "deliverables": [
        "advice-letter.docx"
      ],
      "match_criteria": "PASS if the advice letter warns that probate litigation carries material adverse-cost risk because costs are discretionary. FAIL if it gives no costs warning or states that Elowen’s costs will necessarily be paid from the estate.",
      "fact_refs": [],
      "law_refs": [
        "L83",
        "L84"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "040",
      "deliverables": [
        "advice-letter.docx"
      ],
      "match_criteria": "PASS if the advice letter explains that the Banks v Goodfellow capacity inquiry asks whether Miriam understood the nature and effect of making her will, the extent of the property disposed of, the claims of people included and excluded, and whether a causative disorder or insane delusion affected the disposition. FAIL if any of those four substantive elements is omitted or materially misstated.",
      "fact_refs": [],
      "law_refs": [
        "L16",
        "L17"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "041",
      "deliverables": [
        "advice-letter.docx"
      ],
      "match_criteria": "PASS if the advice letter explains that the 1975 Act assessment concerns the net estate after deducting funeral, testamentary and administration expenses, debts, liabilities and applicable inheritance tax; identifies the approximately £5,940 funeral costs and approximately £2,100 credit-card balance for confirmation as deductions or liabilities; and identifies the approximately £4,860 final-care payments for reconciliation, including determining whether any amount remained outstanding at death rather than automatically deducting the whole paid sum again. FAIL if the net-estate basis or any of those three stated sums is omitted or materially misstated, or if the whole £4,860 is treated as an additional deduction without checking whether it was already paid and reflected in the death balances.",
      "fact_refs": [
        "F267",
        "F268",
        "F271",
        "F272"
      ],
      "law_refs": [
        "L48"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "042",
      "deliverables": [
        "advice-letter.docx"
      ],
      "match_criteria": "PASS if the advice letter explains that, for a 1975 Act claim, Miriam’s severable beneficial share of jointly held property may be treated as part of the net estate to the extent the court considers just, and recommends obtaining the joint Barclays account documents to establish beneficial ownership and survivorship in relation to the £38,000 transfer. FAIL if the possible section 9 treatment or the need to establish ownership and survivorship from the account documents is omitted.",
      "fact_refs": [
        "F262",
        "F263",
        "F265"
      ],
      "law_refs": [
        "L49"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "043",
      "deliverables": [
        "advice-letter.docx"
      ],
      "match_criteria": "PASS if the advice letter explains that a caveat may be extended for successive six-month periods only if the extension application is received during the final month of the current caveat term. FAIL if the extension timing requirement is omitted or materially misstated.",
      "fact_refs": [],
      "law_refs": [
        "L66"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "044",
      "deliverables": [
        "advice-letter.docx"
      ],
      "match_criteria": "PASS if the advice letter explains that, after six months from the first grant, a personal representative who distributes has statutory protection from liability merely because the court might later permit a late 1975 Act claim, while the court’s power to recover estate property distributed pursuant to an order is preserved. FAIL if either the six-month protection or the preserved recovery power is omitted or materially misstated.",
      "fact_refs": [],
      "law_refs": [
        "L79"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "045",
      "deliverables": [
        "advice-letter.docx"
      ],
      "match_criteria": "PASS if the advice letter explains the two-stage 1975 Act analysis: first whether reasonable financial provision has been made for Elowen, and, if not, what order should be made, with the statutory factors relevant at both stages. FAIL if the two-stage analysis or the application of the statutory factors at both stages is omitted or materially misstated.",
      "fact_refs": [],
      "law_refs": [
        "L59"
      ]
    }
  ]
}
vfs/The matter file

Seven namespaces, which is the whole of what the pipeline generates:

  • files: read-only uploads, which is most of what a matter receives: agreements, certificates, invoices, completed questionnaires, letters in
  • emails: correspondence on the matter, inbound and outbound
  • notes: the fee-earner's own file notes, including attendance and call notes
  • contacts: one record per individual or company linked to the matter
  • precedents: the firm's blank templates, where a firm would realistically hold one
  • forms: the blank official form definitions the task calls for
  • documents: editable drafts the firm is actively working on; usually empty at the moment a task is picked up

The platform carries more than these. Key dates, to-dos, chat messages, prior agent threads, call records, quotes and fee agreements were all considered and deliberately left out: an evaluation task is a point in time, so a deadline countdown adds nothing, and fabricating the rest convincingly costs more than it would tell us. contacts stands where the benchmark review had parties, which has since been disabled agent-side.

Show a full document · scan_20260311_101842.pdf (4 KB)
files/ · scan_20260311_101842.pdf · complete text rendering
[PHOTOCOPY]

DOVETAIL LEGAL LLP
Solicitors, Shrewsbury

LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT
OF
MIRIAM CELESTE MARCHANT

DATED 9 APRIL 2018

THIS IS THE LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT of me, MIRIAM CELESTE MARCHANT, of 8 Quarry Bank, Clee Hill, Shropshire, SY8 3PL.

1.  REVOCATION

I REVOKE all former wills and testamentary dispositions made by me and declare this to be my last Will.

2.  APPOINTMENT OF EXECUTORS AND TRUSTEES

I APPOINT my daughter, DR ELOWEN MARCHANT, and my son, CHRISTOPHER “KIT” GARETH MARCHANT, to be the Executors and Trustees of this my Will. In this Will the expression “my Trustees” means the trustees for the time being of this Will.

3.  PAYMENT OF DEBTS AND EXPENSES

I DIRECT my Trustees to pay my just debts, funeral and testamentary expenses and all inheritance tax payable in consequence of my death out of my residuary estate.

4.  RIGHT OF OCCUPATION FOR RONAN ELIAS PREECE

I GIVE to my partner, RONAN ELIAS PREECE, a personal right to occupy my property known as 8 Quarry Bank, Clee Hill, Shropshire, SY8 3PL, together with the garden and adjoining former dispensary building, for a period of two years from the date of my death.

The right of occupation is personal to Ronan Elias Preece and shall not be capable of assignment, transfer or inheritance. It shall determine at the expiry of the two-year period or earlier if Ronan Elias Preece permanently ceases to reside at the property.

During the period of occupation Ronan Elias Preece shall keep the property properly aired and secure and shall pay the usual outgoings in respect of it, including council tax, gas, electricity, water charges, telephone charges and the cost of routine maintenance and repairs arising from his occupation. He shall permit my Trustees, upon reasonable notice, to inspect the property and to carry out any works for which they are responsible. My Trustees shall insure the property against the usual risks, and Ronan Elias Preece shall reimburse to my Trustees the premiums for such insurance.

My Trustees may, if they consider it necessary, sell the property subject to the right of occupation created by this clause and may apply the proceeds of sale in the purchase of a substitute property for occupation by Ronan Elias Preece on equivalent terms.

5.  PERSONAL CHATTELS

I GIVE my personal chattels, as defined by section 55(1)(x) of the Administration of Estates Act 1925, to my Trustees upon trust to hold them as part of my residuary estate.

6.  RESIDUARY ESTATE

SUBJECT to the gifts and provisions of this my Will, I GIVE all the residue of my estate, of whatever nature and wherever situated, to my Trustees upon trust for my daughter, DR ELOWEN MARCHANT, and my son, CHRISTOPHER “KIT” GARETH MARCHANT, in equal shares absolutely, provided that each of them survives me by twenty-eight days.

If either DR ELOWEN MARCHANT or CHRISTOPHER “KIT” GARETH MARCHANT fails to survive me by twenty-eight days, the share which that person would otherwise have taken shall accrue to the other of them if surviving me by that period.

7.  ADMINISTRATIVE POWERS

My Trustees shall have all the powers of investment, management, sale, appropriation and postponement conferred by law upon trustees and personal representatives. My Trustees may appropriate any part of my estate in or towards satisfaction of any share or interest under this Will at such value as they in their absolute discretion think fit, and may make any appropriation with or without the consent of the beneficiary concerned.

IN WITNESS whereof I have signed this my Will on the 9th day of April 2018.

SIGNED by the above-named )
MIRIAM CELESTE MARCHANT )
as her last Will in the presence )
of us both present at the same time, )
who at her request and in her presence )
and in the presence of each other )
have hereunto subscribed our names )
as witnesses:

[SIGNATURE]
Miriam Celeste Marchant

FIRST WITNESS

[SIGNATURE]
Helen Margaret Parry
of 18 Mill Lane, Clee Hill, Shropshire, SY8 3QF
Retired school administrator

SECOND WITNESS

[SIGNATURE]
Martin Hugh Llewelyn
of 4 The Brambles, Ludlow, Shropshire, SY8 1RP
Accounts clerk

[End of photocopied will]
Show a full document · Barclays_sole_accounts_Aug25-Jan26.pdf (6 KB)
files/ · Barclays_sole_accounts_Aug25-Jan26.pdf · complete text rendering
BARCLAYS

ACCOUNT STATEMENT EXPORT

Generated on 31 January 2026

Important information
This document contains statement information for the accounts selected for export. Please check transactions promptly and tell us if you believe that a payment has not been authorised or has been made incorrectly.

For security, account numbers are shown in masked form. Amounts shown in the Money out column have left the account. Amounts shown in the Money in column have been paid into the account. The balance shown is the available account balance after the transaction on that line.

Account holder
Miriam Celeste Marchant

Correspondence address
8 Quarry Bank
Clee Hill
Shropshire
SY8 3PL

------------------------------------------------------------

BARCLAYS INSTANT ACCESS SAVINGS ACCOUNT

Account type: Instant Access Savings Account
Account holder: Miriam Celeste Marchant (sole account)
Account number: •••• 4821
Sort code: ••-••-••
Statement period: 1 August 2025 to 30 November 2025

Statement summary
Opening balance at 1 August 2025: £82,450.00
Closing balance at 30 November 2025: £35,342.50
Interest is shown when it is added to your account. Transaction descriptions and references are reproduced as held on our records.

Transactions

Barclays Instant Access Savings Account — Miriam Celeste Marchant (sole account), account number •••• 4821 — Statement period: 1 August 2025 to 30 November 2025

Opening balance: £82,450.00
Date               Description                                                               Reference             Money out   Money in   Balance
15 August 2025     Transfer to joint account — Miriam Celeste Marchant / Ronan Elias Preece                        £38,000.00  —          £44,450.00
31 August 2025     Interest paid                                                                                   —           £142.18    £44,592.18
12 September 2025  Transfer in                                                               MCM reserve transfer  —           £5,000.00  £49,592.18
30 September 2025  Interest paid                                                                                   —           £96.41     £49,688.59
18 October 2025    Transfer out                                                              household funds       £2,000.00   —          £47,688.59
31 October 2025    Interest paid                                                                                   —           £92.67     £47,781.26
4 November 2025    Payment to Ronan Elias Preece                                             carer support         £12,500.00  —          £35,281.26
30 November 2025   Interest paid                                                                                   —           £61.24     £35,342.50


Savings account information
This is an instant-access savings account. You can make withdrawals and deposits subject to the terms applying to your account. Interest credited to your account forms part of your account balance. The transaction list above includes all credits and debits recorded during the statement period.

If a transaction reference is shown, it is the payment reference supplied with the transaction. A reference does not itself give further information about the reason for a payment.

------------------------------------------------------------

BARCLAYS CURRENT ACCOUNT

Account type: Current Account
Account holder: Miriam Celeste Marchant (sole account)
Account number: •••• 9076
Sort code: ••-••-••
Statement period: 1 January 2026 to 31 January 2026

Statement summary
Opening balance at 1 January 2026: £14,820.00
Closing balance at 31 January 2026: £11,108.02
Transactions are listed in the order in which they were recorded on the account. The balance shown for each entry is the balance after that entry.

Transactions

Barclays Current Account — Miriam Celeste Marchant (sole account), account number •••• 9076 — Statement period: 1 January 2026 to 31 January 2026

Opening balance: £14,820.00
Date             Description                                    Reference              Money out  Money in   Balance
2 January 2026   Card payment — Groceries                                              £86.40     —          £14,733.60
5 January 2026   Standing order — Council Tax                                          £214.00    —          £14,519.60
7 January 2026   Credit transfer received                       salary                 —          £3,450.00  £17,969.60
9 January 2026   Transfer to Christopher “Kit” Gareth Marchant  roof deposit           £6,000.00  —          £11,969.60
12 January 2026  Direct debit — Energy                                                 £148.73    —          £11,820.87
16 January 2026  Card payment — Fuel                                                   £64.20     —          £11,756.67
20 January 2026  Standing order — Savings                       monthly transfer       £750.00    —          £11,006.67
28 January 2026  Credit transfer received                       expense reimbursement  —          £125.00    £11,131.67
30 January 2026  Card payment — Pharmacy                                               £23.65     —          £11,108.02


Current account information
Card payments are shown when processed by the merchant or payment provider. Direct debits, standing orders and transfers are shown on the date they were processed. Incoming credits are shown as money in.

Please retain this statement for your records. If you have a question about a transaction, please have the account number, transaction date, amount and transaction reference available when you contact us.

Security reminder
Barclays will never ask you to move money to a ‘safe account’, disclose your full passcode, or provide a card reader code over the telephone. If you are concerned that someone has accessed your account or that a payment was made without your authority, contact Barclays using the number shown in your usual banking communications.

This statement has been produced from Barclays account records on 31 January 2026.

End of account statement export.
cco.jsonThe context object

The Case Context Object: entities and roles, places, dated events, and the analysis of how they connect. It is not a file the agent browses to. On the platform the context object is assembled by a separate service and injected into Lawrence's prompt before a run begins, so the agent starts with an orientation to the matter rather than a blank page, and the bundle carries it in exactly the shape that reaches the prompt so the harness can do the same. Verified against the matter file for factual truth before release.

Show the full file · cco.json (70 KB)
cco.json · contested-will-advice · complete
{
  "entities_and_roles": [
    {
      "name": "Dr Elowen Marchant",
      "role": "Client, daughter, potential claimant and beneficiary under earlier wills",
      "type": "individual",
      "description": "Miriam’s elder biological daughter. She says she expected equal treatment with Kit under the 2018 will, but was told the purported 2025 will gives her £5,000. She seeks information and advice about challenging the final will and preserving estate assets.",
      "supporting_facts": [
        "Elowen is Miriam’s elder biological daughter.",
        "She received an unsigned copy of the will dated 22 August 2025 after repeated requests.",
        "The unsigned copy gives her a £5,000 pecuniary legacy.",
        "She has not seen the signed original or will-preparation papers."
      ],
      "citations": [
        {
          "source": {
            "type": "document",
            "id": "Client questionnaire - Elowen M - returned.pdf",
            "name": "Client questionnaire - Elowen M - returned.pdf",
            "timestamp": "2026-03-17T00:00:00Z",
            "author": "Dr Elowen Marchant"
          },
          "passage": {
            "text": "I am Miriam Celeste Marchant’s elder biological daughter."
          }
        },
        {
          "source": {
            "type": "note",
            "id": "note by Amira Shah, Solicitor 2026-03-13",
            "name": "Attendance note — initial call with Dr Elowen Marchant",
            "timestamp": "2026-03-13T00:00:00Z",
            "author": "Amira Shah, Solicitor"
          },
          "passage": {
            "text": "Elowen wants advice about challenging the circumstances and effect of Miriam’s final will. She also wants to obtain the will-preparation file and relevant medical and financial information, and wants estate assets not to be distributed before the position is clarified."
          }
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "name": "Miriam Celeste Marchant",
      "role": "Deceased testator and estate owner",
      "type": "individual",
      "description": "Retired pharmacist, usual resident and sole owner of Quarry Bank. She died on 14 February 2026. The file contains executed-copy wills from 2004 and 2018, and an unsigned copy of a purported will dated 22 August 2025.",
      "supporting_facts": [
        "Miriam died at Severn Hospice, Shrewsbury, on 14 February 2026.",
        "Her usual address was 8 Quarry Bank, Clee Hill.",
        "The 2018 will appointed Elowen and Kit as executors and left residue equally to them, subject to Ronan’s two-year occupation right.",
        "The purported 2025 will is presently available only as an unsigned copy."
      ],
      "citations": [
        {
          "source": {
            "type": "document",
            "id": "Miriam death cert.pdf",
            "name": "Miriam death cert.pdf",
            "timestamp": "2026-02-19T00:00:00Z",
            "author": "Shropshire Registration Service"
          },
          "passage": {
            "text": "Date and place of death: 14 February 2026, Severn Hospice, Shrewsbury"
          }
        },
        {
          "source": {
            "type": "document",
            "id": "Estate assets - Elowen notes 12.3.26.xlsx",
            "name": "ESTATE ASSETS — WORKING SCHEDULE",
            "timestamp": "2026-03-12T00:00:00Z",
            "author": "Dr Elowen Marchant"
          },
          "passage": {
            "text": "8 Quarry Bank, Clee Hill (title SL920617) Miriam Celeste Marchant — sole owner; mortgage-free."
          }
        },
        {
          "source": {
            "type": "document",
            "id": "Will_Miriam_Marchant_unsigned.pdf",
            "name": "Will of Miriam Celeste Marchant dated 22 August 2025 (copy — unsigned)",
            "timestamp": "2025-08-22T00:00:00Z",
            "author": "Briar & Keene Wills Ltd"
          },
          "passage": {
            "text": "COPY — UNSIGNED"
          }
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "name": "Christopher “Kit” Gareth Marchant",
      "role": "Miriam’s son; purported sole executor and principal beneficiary under the purported 2025 will",
      "type": "individual",
      "description": "Elowen’s younger brother. He informed Elowen of the £5,000 legacy, sent the unsigned 2025 will copy, says he will send the signed original to solicitors, and intends to instruct Whitlock Fenner Solicitors. Under the copy, he is sole executor, receives £25,000 and the Volvo, and is stated to receive 30% of residue.",
      "supporting_facts": [
        "Kit emailed Elowen on 23 February 2026 that the will named him sole executor and gave her £5,000.",
        "On 27 February 2026 he sent an unsigned copy and said he would send the signed original to solicitors.",
        "He said on 4 March 2026 that he had not applied for probate and intended to instruct Whitlock Fenner Solicitors."
      ],
      "citations": [
        {
          "source": {
            "type": "message",
            "id": "Re: Mum’s will and estate",
            "name": "Re: Mum’s will and estate",
            "timestamp": "2026-02-23T16:42:00Z",
            "author": "Christopher “Kit” Gareth Marchant"
          },
          "passage": {
            "text": "Mum’s will leaves you a pecuniary legacy of £5,000. The will names me as sole executor."
          }
        },
        {
          "source": {
            "type": "document",
            "id": "Email - Kit - will copy 27-02-26.msg",
            "name": "Email - Kit - will copy 27-02-26.msg",
            "timestamp": "2026-02-27T10:14:00Z",
            "author": "Christopher “Kit” Gareth Marchant"
          },
          "passage": {
            "text": "This is what Mum wanted. I will send the signed original to the solicitors."
          }
        },
        {
          "source": {
            "type": "document",
            "id": "Kit email - estate update 04 March.msg",
            "name": "Kit email - estate update 04 March.msg",
            "timestamp": "2026-03-04T10:18:00Z",
            "author": "Christopher “Kit” Gareth Marchant"
          },
          "passage": {
            "text": "I intend to instruct Whitlock Fenner Solicitors, 21 Broad Street, Ludlow, to obtain probate and administer Mum’s estate. I have not applied for a grant of probate myself."
          }
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "name": "Ronan Elias Preece",
      "role": "Miriam’s unmarried long-term partner, occupier, beneficiary and death-certificate informant",
      "type": "individual",
      "description": "Ronan lived with Miriam at Quarry Bank, was present at clinical appointments, and remains there after her death. Under the purported 2025 will copy he has a personal, rent-free occupation right for as long as he wishes; the attendance note records that he is also said to receive 70% of residue. His daughters receive legacies under the copy.",
      "supporting_facts": [
        "Ronan was present at Miriam’s death and registered it as her partner.",
        "He attended the 2023 memory assessment and the May 2025 oncology appointment.",
        "The 2025 copy grants him a non-transferable right to occupy Quarry Bank rent-free for as long as he wishes.",
        "He called Briar & Keene in early August 2025 seeking an urgent appointment for Miriam."
      ],
      "citations": [
        {
          "source": {
            "type": "document",
            "id": "Miriam death cert.pdf",
            "name": "Miriam death cert.pdf",
            "timestamp": "2026-02-19T00:00:00Z",
            "author": "Shropshire Registration Service"
          },
          "passage": {
            "text": "Name and surname of informant: Ronan Elias Preece\nQualification of informant: Partner of the deceased, present at the death"
          }
        },
        {
          "source": {
            "type": "document",
            "id": "Will_Miriam_Marchant_unsigned.pdf",
            "name": "Will of Miriam Celeste Marchant dated 22 August 2025 (copy — unsigned)",
            "timestamp": "2025-08-22T00:00:00Z",
            "author": "Briar & Keene Wills Ltd"
          },
          "passage": {
            "text": "I give to my partner, Ronan Elias Preece, the personal right to occupy my property known as 8 Quarry Bank, Clee Hill, Shropshire, SY8 3PL (“Quarry Bank”), together with the garden, former dispensary building and the contents normally used and enjoyed with the house, rent-free for as long as he wishes."
          }
        },
        {
          "source": {
            "type": "document",
            "id": "BriarKeene visit note 03-03-26.pdf",
            "name": "Personal note — visit to Briar & Keene Wills Ltd",
            "timestamp": "2026-03-03T00:00:00Z",
            "author": "Dr Elowen Marchant"
          },
          "passage": {
            "text": "Ms Quill told me that Ronan Elias Preece had telephoned Briar & Keene in early August 2025 to request an appointment because Miriam Celeste Marchant “needed to update everything urgently”."
          }
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "name": "Nerys Aline Preece",
      "role": "Named pecuniary beneficiary under the purported 2025 will",
      "type": "individual",
      "description": "Ronan’s daughter, stated in the unsigned 2025 will copy to receive £10,000 if she survived Miriam by 28 days.",
      "supporting_facts": [
        "The 2025 copy gives Nerys £10,000.",
        "The gift is subject to the 28-day survivorship provision."
      ],
      "citations": [
        {
          "source": {
            "type": "document",
            "id": "Will_Miriam_Marchant_unsigned.pdf",
            "name": "Will of Miriam Celeste Marchant dated 22 August 2025 (copy — unsigned)",
            "timestamp": "2025-08-22T00:00:00Z",
            "author": "Briar & Keene Wills Ltd"
          },
          "passage": {
            "text": "to Nerys Aline Preece the sum of TEN THOUSAND POUNDS (£10,000);"
          }
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "name": "Harriet Lorna Preece",
      "role": "Named pecuniary beneficiary under the purported 2025 will",
      "type": "individual",
      "description": "Ronan’s daughter, stated in the unsigned 2025 will copy to receive £10,000 if she survived Miriam by 28 days.",
      "supporting_facts": [
        "The 2025 copy gives Harriet £10,000.",
        "The gift is subject to the 28-day survivorship provision."
      ],
      "citations": [
        {
          "source": {
            "type": "document",
            "id": "Will_Miriam_Marchant_unsigned.pdf",
            "name": "Will of Miriam Celeste Marchant dated 22 August 2025 (copy — unsigned)",
            "timestamp": "2025-08-22T00:00:00Z",
            "author": "Briar & Keene Wills Ltd"
          },
          "passage": {
            "text": "to Harriet Lorna Preece the sum of TEN THOUSAND POUNDS (£10,000)."
          }
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "name": "Lydia Faye Quill",
      "role": "Will writer at Briar & Keene Wills Ltd and attesting witness to Miriam Celeste Marchant’s final will",
      "type": "individual",
      "description": "The person Elowen spoke to at Briar & Keene about the purported 2025 will. According to Elowen’s note, she visited Quarry Bank before signing, met Miriam alone for about 20 minutes on 18 August 2025, and declined to release the preparation file without executor authority. Lydia Faye Quill and Darren Michael Sallow attended Quarry Bank on 22 August 2025 and were the two attesting witnesses to the will signed there that day.",
      "supporting_facts": [
        "Quill said the preparation file could not be released without the executor’s authority.",
        "Elowen understood that Quill met Miriam alone for approximately 20 minutes on 18 August 2025.",
        "Elowen does not know whether Quill obtained medical records, contacted the GP, sought a capacity assessment, retained attendance notes, or sent a draft directly to Miriam.",
        "Lydia Faye Quill and Darren Michael Sallow attended Quarry Bank on 22 August 2025 and were the two attesting witnesses to Miriam Celeste Marchant’s will signed there that day."
      ],
      "citations": [
        {
          "source": {
            "type": "document",
            "id": "BriarKeene visit note 03-03-26.pdf",
            "name": "Personal note — visit to Briar & Keene Wills Ltd",
            "timestamp": "2026-03-03T00:00:00Z",
            "author": "Dr Elowen Marchant"
          },
          "passage": {
            "text": "She said that she could not release the preparation file without the executor’s authority."
          }
        },
        {
          "source": {
            "type": "document",
            "id": "BriarKeene visit note 03-03-26.pdf",
            "name": "Personal note — visit to Briar & Keene Wills Ltd",
            "timestamp": "2026-03-03T00:00:00Z",
            "author": "Dr Elowen Marchant"
          },
          "passage": {
            "text": "My understanding from what Ms Quill said is that she met Mum alone for approximately 20 minutes on 18 August 2025."
          }
        },
        {
          "source": {
            "type": "document",
            "id": "Will_Miriam_Marchant_unsigned.pdf",
            "name": "Will_Miriam_Marchant_unsigned.pdf",
            "timestamp": null,
            "author": null
          },
          "passage": {
            "text": "DATED 22 AUGUST 2025"
          }
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "name": "Darren Michael Sallow",
      "role": "Named attesting witness to the purported 2025 will",
      "type": "individual",
      "description": "Listed in the contact records as a named attesting witness. The available extracted text of the unsigned copy does not include its execution/attestation page.",
      "supporting_facts": [
        "The contact record identifies him as the named attesting witness.",
        "Only an unsigned copy of the purported 2025 will has been supplied to Elowen."
      ],
      "citations": [
        {
          "source": {
            "type": "note",
            "id": "note by Amira Shah, Solicitor 2026-04-08",
            "name": "File note — documents received and probate search",
            "timestamp": "2026-04-08T00:00:00Z",
            "author": "Amira Shah, Solicitor"
          },
          "passage": {
            "text": "No signed original of the will dated 22 August 2025 has been provided to Elowen."
          }
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "name": "Patience Rowena Dacre",
      "role": "Potential factual witness",
      "type": "individual",
      "description": "Miriam Celeste Marchant’s former neighbour and Elowen’s long-standing family acquaintance, and a potential factual witness.",
      "supporting_facts": [
        "After the funeral, Patience told Elowen that Miriam had said during summer 2025, “Ronan and Kit keep telling me Elowen only wants my money”.",
        "Patience recalled Miriam becoming distressed in August 2025 because she could not find a folder containing old papers.",
        "Patience said Ronan told her in August 2025 that Miriam “didn’t need to be bothering herself with legal things”."
      ],
      "citations": [
        {
          "source": {
            "type": "document",
            "id": null,
            "name": "Client questionnaire - Elowen M - returned.pdf",
            "timestamp": null,
            "author": null
          },
          "passage": {
            "text": "Elowen records that, after Miriam’s funeral, Patience Dacre told her that Miriam had said during summer 2025, “Ronan and Kit keep telling me Elowen only wants my money”; that Patience recalled Miriam becoming distressed in August 2025 because she could not find a folder containing old papers; and that Ronan told Patience in August 2025 that Miriam “didn’t need to be bothering herself with legal things”."
          }
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "name": "Dr Saira Wenlock",
      "role": "Miriam’s former GP",
      "type": "individual",
      "description": "GP at Clee Hill Medical Practice, copied into the Memory Clinic letter and named in hospital correspondence. Her records may bear on Miriam’s health, cognition and support needs.",
      "supporting_facts": [
        "The Memory Clinic planned to notify Dr Wenlock of the mild vascular dementia diagnosis.",
        "The March 2025 discharge plan included GP review within seven days."
      ],
      "citations": [
        {
          "source": {
            "type": "document",
            "id": "Memory Clinic letter 05-12-23.pdf",
            "name": "Memory Clinic letter",
            "timestamp": "2023-12-05T00:00:00Z",
            "author": "County Hospital Memory Clinic"
          },
          "passage": {
            "text": "Copy to: Dr Saira Wenlock, Clee Hill Medical Practice"
          }
        },
        {
          "source": {
            "type": "document",
            "id": "Discharge-summary-March-2025.pdf",
            "name": "Discharge summary",
            "timestamp": "2025-03-18T00:00:00Z",
            "author": "County Hospital NHS Trust"
          },
          "passage": {
            "text": "GP review within seven days to monitor hydration, weight, diabetes management and support needs."
          }
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "name": "Rhodri Iestyn Marchant",
      "role": "Elowen’s husband; household-finance witness",
      "type": "individual",
      "description": "Self-employed architectural technician and co-owner with Elowen of their home. His income and estimated tax liability form part of Elowen’s recorded household financial position.",
      "supporting_facts": [
        "He and Elowen jointly own 14 Celandine Row, subject to a mortgage.",
        "His estimated net drawings for 2025/26 are £21,000.",
        "An estimated £6,200 self-assessment amount is due on 31 January 2027."
      ],
      "citations": [
        {
          "source": {
            "type": "document",
            "id": "RIM-2025-26-SA-estimate-10Apr26.pdf",
            "name": "Provisional Self-Assessment estimate",
            "timestamp": "2026-04-10T00:00:00Z",
            "author": "Harrowby Accountancy"
          },
          "passage": {
            "text": "Estimated net drawings for the year ended 5 April 2026: £21,000"
          }
        },
        {
          "source": {
            "type": "document",
            "id": "RIM-2025-26-SA-estimate-10Apr26.pdf",
            "name": "Provisional Self-Assessment estimate",
            "timestamp": "2026-04-10T00:00:00Z",
            "author": "Harrowby Accountancy"
          },
          "passage": {
            "text": "Estimated unpaid Self Assessment amount: £6,200\nEstimated payment due date: 31 January 2027"
          }
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "name": "Tomas Ivor Marchant",
      "role": "Miriam’s adult grandson",
      "type": "individual",
      "description": "Elowen and Rhodri’s adult son. He attended Miriam’s funeral and lived in rented accommodation in Sheffield while undertaking an engineering apprenticeship.",
      "supporting_facts": [
        "Miriam cared for Tomas one day a week between 2005 and 2010.",
        "He attended the funeral with Elowen and Rhodri."
      ],
      "citations": [
        {
          "source": {
            "type": "document",
            "id": "Client questionnaire - Elowen M - returned.pdf",
            "name": "Client questionnaire - Elowen M - returned.pdf",
            "timestamp": "2026-03-17T00:00:00Z",
            "author": "Dr Elowen Marchant"
          },
          "passage": {
            "text": "Mum cared for Tomas one day a week between 2005 and 2010 while I returned to work after maternity leave."
          }
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "name": "Gareth Owen Marchant",
      "role": "Miriam’s former husband; executor under the 2004 will",
      "type": "individual",
      "description": "Named with Marjorie Holt as executor and trustee in Miriam’s 2004 will. He is not appointed under the available 2018 or purported 2025 wills.",
      "supporting_facts": [
        "The 2004 will describes him as Miriam’s former husband.",
        "The 2004 will appoints him and Marjorie Holt executors and trustees."
      ],
      "citations": [
        {
          "source": {
            "type": "document",
            "id": "2004will-Marchant-oldscan.pdf",
            "name": "Last Will and Testament of Miriam Celeste Marchant dated 15 July 2004",
            "timestamp": "2004-07-15T00:00:00Z",
            "author": "Anstice Rowe & Bell"
          },
          "passage": {
            "text": "I APPOINT my former husband, GARETH OWEN MARCHANT, of 33 Brynward Terrace, Aberystwyth, Ceredigion, and my cousin, MARJORIE FENELLA HOLT, of 4 The Laurels, Church Stretton, Shropshire, to be the Executors and Trustees of this my Will"
          }
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "name": "Marjorie Fenella Holt",
      "role": "Miriam’s cousin; executor under the 2004 will and contingent beneficiary",
      "type": "individual",
      "description": "Named in Miriam’s 2004 will as co-executor and trustee with Gareth Marchant, and as ultimate substitute residuary beneficiary in the contingency stated there.",
      "supporting_facts": [
        "The 2004 will calls her Miriam’s cousin.",
        "She is appointed an executor and trustee in that will.",
        "She is the ultimate beneficiary if neither child nor any issue survives Miriam."
      ],
      "citations": [
        {
          "source": {
            "type": "document",
            "id": "2004will-Marchant-oldscan.pdf",
            "name": "Last Will and Testament of Miriam Celeste Marchant dated 15 July 2004",
            "timestamp": "2004-07-15T00:00:00Z",
            "author": "Anstice Rowe & Bell"
          },
          "passage": {
            "text": "IF neither of my said children nor any issue of either of them shall survive me, I GIVE my residuary estate to MARJORIE FENELLA HOLT absolutely."
          }
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "name": "Briar & Keene Wills Ltd",
      "role": "Will-writing business said to have prepared the purported 2025 will",
      "type": "organisation",
      "description": "The firm shown on the unsigned 2025 will copy. It holds or may hold the original will and preparation material, but declined Elowen’s request for the file without executor authority.",
      "supporting_facts": [
        "The unsigned copy bears Briar & Keene’s name and Ludlow address.",
        "Quill said the firm could not release the preparation file without executor authority."
      ],
      "citations": [
        {
          "source": {
            "type": "document",
            "id": "Will_Miriam_Marchant_unsigned.pdf",
            "name": "Will of Miriam Celeste Marchant dated 22 August 2025 (copy — unsigned)",
            "timestamp": "2025-08-22T00:00:00Z",
            "author": "Briar & Keene Wills Ltd"
          },
          "passage": {
            "text": "BRIAR & KEENE WILLS LTD\n47 Corve Street\nLudlow\nSY8 1DU"
          }
        },
        {
          "source": {
            "type": "document",
            "id": "BriarKeene visit note 03-03-26.pdf",
            "name": "Personal note — visit to Briar & Keene Wills Ltd",
            "timestamp": "2026-03-03T00:00:00Z",
            "author": "Dr Elowen Marchant"
          },
          "passage": {
            "text": "I left without seeing the signed original will or any preparation papers."
          }
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "name": "Dovetail Legal LLP",
      "role": "Former solicitors and preparer of the 2018 will",
      "type": "organisation",
      "description": "The firm named on the photocopy of Miriam’s 9 April 2018 will.",
      "supporting_facts": [
        "The 2018 will is headed Dovetail Legal LLP, Solicitors, Shrewsbury."
      ],
      "citations": [
        {
          "source": {
            "type": "document",
            "id": "scan_20260311_101842.pdf",
            "name": "Last Will and Testament of Miriam Celeste Marchant dated 9 April 2018",
            "timestamp": "2018-04-09T00:00:00Z",
            "author": "Dovetail Legal LLP"
          },
          "passage": {
            "text": "DOVETAIL LEGAL LLP\nSolicitors, Shrewsbury"
          }
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "name": "Whitlock Fenner Solicitors",
      "role": "Solicitors Kit intended to instruct for probate and administration",
      "type": "organisation",
      "description": "The proposed firm for the estate administration. The file does not establish that it was actually instructed.",
      "supporting_facts": [
        "Kit said he intended to instruct the firm.",
        "He said he had not personally applied for probate."
      ],
      "citations": [
        {
          "source": {
            "type": "document",
            "id": "Kit email - estate update 04 March.msg",
            "name": "Kit email - estate update 04 March.msg",
            "timestamp": "2026-03-04T10:18:00Z",
            "author": "Christopher “Kit” Gareth Marchant"
          },
          "passage": {
            "text": "I intend to instruct Whitlock Fenner Solicitors, 21 Broad Street, Ludlow, to obtain probate and administer Mum’s estate."
          }
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "name": "Clee Hill Medical Practice",
      "role": "Miriam’s GP practice and potential holder of medical records",
      "type": "organisation",
      "description": "Miriam’s GP practice, with Dr Saira Wenlock identified as GP in the medical correspondence.",
      "supporting_facts": [
        "The Memory Clinic letter was copied to Dr Wenlock at this practice.",
        "Elowen asked whether Briar & Keene had contacted Dr Wenlock but does not know whether it did."
      ],
      "citations": [
        {
          "source": {
            "type": "document",
            "id": "Memory Clinic letter 05-12-23.pdf",
            "name": "Memory Clinic letter",
            "timestamp": "2023-12-05T00:00:00Z",
            "author": "County Hospital Memory Clinic"
          },
          "passage": {
            "text": "Copy to: Dr Saira Wenlock, Clee Hill Medical Practice"
          }
        },
        {
          "source": {
            "type": "document",
            "id": "BriarKeene visit note 03-03-26.pdf",
            "name": "Personal note — visit to Briar & Keene Wills Ltd",
            "timestamp": "2026-03-03T00:00:00Z",
            "author": "Dr Elowen Marchant"
          },
          "passage": {
            "text": "I also asked whether she had contacted Dr Saira Wenlock, Mum’s GP. I do not know whether she contacted Dr Wenlock."
          }
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "name": "Pember & Stagg",
      "role": "Property consultants providing a preliminary appraisal of Quarry Bank",
      "type": "organisation",
      "description": "Provided a preliminary, non-formal market appraisal of Quarry Bank dated 25 February 2026, addressed to Kit.",
      "supporting_facts": [
        "The appraisal gives a likely open-market range of £620,000–£650,000.",
        "It expressly is not a formal probate, tax, lending or litigation valuation.",
        "It does not verify the effect of occupier rights or interests on vacant possession."
      ],
      "citations": [
        {
          "source": {
            "type": "document",
            "id": "Pember_Stagg_preliminary_appraisal_25-02-26.pdf",
            "name": "Preliminary market appraisal",
            "timestamp": "2026-02-25T00:00:00Z",
            "author": "Owen Harcourt, Pember & Stagg"
          },
          "passage": {
            "text": "our current opinion is that the likely open-market value is in the region of £620,000 to £650,000."
          }
        },
        {
          "source": {
            "type": "document",
            "id": "Pember_Stagg_preliminary_appraisal_25-02-26.pdf",
            "name": "Preliminary market appraisal",
            "timestamp": "2026-02-25T00:00:00Z",
            "author": "Owen Harcourt, Pember & Stagg"
          },
          "passage": {
            "text": "This is an informal preliminary appraisal only and is not a formal valuation for probate, lending, taxation or litigation purposes."
          }
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "name": "Hearthside Home Support",
      "role": "Provider of Miriam’s home-care package",
      "type": "organisation",
      "description": "Issued the final account for care supplied at Quarry Bank during January and February 2026. The statement records total charges and payments of £4,860, with a nil closing balance.",
      "supporting_facts": [
        "January and February 2026 each generated £2,430 care charges.",
        "The account records £4,860 total payments and £4,860 total charges.",
        "The closing balance is nil."
      ],
      "citations": [
        {
          "source": {
            "type": "document",
            "id": "care-fees Jan-Feb 2026.pdf",
            "name": "Final account statement",
            "timestamp": "2026-02-28T00:00:00Z",
            "author": "Hearthside Home Support"
          },
          "passage": {
            "text": "Total care charges for statement period: £4,860.00\nTotal payments received for statement period: £4,860.00\nClosing balance: £0.00"
          }
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "name": "County Hospital Memory Clinic / County Hospital NHS Trust",
      "role": "Medical providers recording Miriam’s cognition, illness and treatment decisions",
      "type": "organisation",
      "description": "The Memory Clinic assessed Miriam in November 2023 and diagnosed mild vascular dementia. County Hospital admitted her in March 2025, identified pancreatic cancer, and its oncology service recorded palliative treatment in May 2025.",
      "supporting_facts": [
        "The Memory Clinic described mild vascular dementia and cognitive difficulties.",
        "In March 2025 Miriam was admitted with dehydration and a pancreatic mass was identified.",
        "In May 2025 oncology recorded pancreatic adenocarcinoma, no major surgery, and a palliative approach."
      ],
      "citations": [
        {
          "source": {
            "type": "document",
            "id": "Memory Clinic letter 05-12-23.pdf",
            "name": "Memory Clinic letter",
            "timestamp": "2023-12-05T00:00:00Z",
            "author": "County Hospital Memory Clinic"
          },
          "passage": {
            "text": "the overall picture is consistent with mild vascular dementia."
          }
        },
        {
          "source": {
            "type": "document",
            "id": "Oncology-clinic-letter-May-2025.pdf",
            "name": "Oncology clinic letter",
            "timestamp": "2025-05-20T00:00:00Z",
            "author": "County Hospital Oncology Service"
          },
          "passage": {
            "text": "Mrs Marchant has pancreatic adenocarcinoma, identified following her admission. Following discussion of the diagnosis, likely course and available options, she has decided not to proceed with major surgery. The treatment approach is therefore palliative."
          }
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "name": "HM Courts & Tribunals Service",
      "role": "Probate-records authority",
      "type": "organisation",
      "description": "Conducted the probate-record search on 7 April 2026, which located no grant of probate or letters of administration record for Miriam as at that date.",
      "supporting_facts": [
        "The search found no grant or letters record as at 7 April 2026.",
        "The result does not establish whether an application was made, awaiting processing, withdrawn, or later submitted."
      ],
      "citations": [
        {
          "source": {
            "type": "document",
            "id": "Probate search result 07-04-2026.pdf",
            "name": "Probate records search result",
            "timestamp": "2026-04-07T00:00:00Z",
            "author": "HM Courts & Tribunals Service"
          },
          "passage": {
            "text": "No grant of probate or letters of administration record has been located for Miriam Celeste Marchant, deceased, as at 7 April 2026."
          }
        }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "places_and_location": [
    {
      "location": "8 Quarry Bank, Clee Hill, Shropshire, SY8 3PL",
      "type": "Residence and principal estate property",
      "relevance": "Miriam’s long-term home, the estate’s principal recorded asset, the place of Ronan’s occupation, and the reported location of the will-writer’s pre-signing visit. It is central to the competing occupation provisions and estate valuation.",
      "supporting_facts": [
        "Miriam lived there from 1991 until her death.",
        "The working schedule records Miriam as sole owner, mortgage-free, with an approximate £635,000 value at death.",
        "The 2025 copy gives Ronan a rent-free occupation right for as long as he wishes.",
        "The 2018 will instead gave Ronan occupation for two years from death."
      ],
      "citations": [
        {
          "source": {
            "type": "document",
            "id": "Client questionnaire - Elowen M - returned.pdf",
            "name": "Client questionnaire - Elowen M - returned.pdf",
            "timestamp": "2026-03-17T00:00:00Z",
            "author": "Dr Elowen Marchant"
          },
          "passage": {
            "text": "Mum was a retired pharmacist. She lived at 8 Quarry Bank, Clee Hill, Shropshire, SY8 3PL, from 1991 until she died."
          }
        },
        {
          "source": {
            "type": "document",
            "id": "Estate assets - Elowen notes 12.3.26.xlsx",
            "name": "ESTATE ASSETS — WORKING SCHEDULE",
            "timestamp": "2026-03-12T00:00:00Z",
            "author": "Dr Elowen Marchant"
          },
          "passage": {
            "text": "8 Quarry Bank, Clee Hill (title SL920617) Miriam Celeste Marchant — sole owner; mortgage-free. Ronan Elias Preece’s lifetime occupation right affects vacant-possession saleability."
          }
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "location": "Severn Hospice, Shrewsbury",
      "type": "Place of death",
      "relevance": "Miriam died there on 14 February 2026; this fixes the commencement of estate administration and the point from which will survivorship and occupation provisions operate.",
      "supporting_facts": [
        "The death certificate records Miriam’s death there on 14 February 2026.",
        "Ronan was present at the death."
      ],
      "citations": [
        {
          "source": {
            "type": "document",
            "id": "Miriam death cert.pdf",
            "name": "Miriam death cert.pdf",
            "timestamp": "2026-02-19T00:00:00Z",
            "author": "Shropshire Registration Service"
          },
          "passage": {
            "text": "Date and place of death: 14 February 2026, Severn Hospice, Shrewsbury"
          }
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "location": "Briar & Keene Wills Ltd, 47 Corve Street, Ludlow, SY8 1DU",
      "type": "Will-writer’s office",
      "relevance": "The business named on the unsigned 2025 will copy and where Elowen sought access to the original and preparation file on 3 March 2026.",
      "supporting_facts": [
        "The unsigned copy identifies this office.",
        "Elowen attended there and was refused the preparation file absent executor authority."
      ],
      "citations": [
        {
          "source": {
            "type": "document",
            "id": "BriarKeene visit note 03-03-26.pdf",
            "name": "Personal note — visit to Briar & Keene Wills Ltd",
            "timestamp": "2026-03-03T00:00:00Z",
            "author": "Dr Elowen Marchant"
          },
          "passage": {
            "text": "Visit to Briar & Keene Wills Ltd, 47 Corve Street, Ludlow"
          }
        },
        {
          "source": {
            "type": "document",
            "id": "BriarKeene visit note 03-03-26.pdf",
            "name": "Personal note — visit to Briar & Keene Wills Ltd",
            "timestamp": "2026-03-03T00:00:00Z",
            "author": "Dr Elowen Marchant"
          },
          "passage": {
            "text": "She said that she could not release the preparation file without the executor’s authority."
          }
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "location": "14 Celandine Row, Ludlow, Shropshire, SY8 1QH",
      "type": "Elowen and Rhodri’s home",
      "relevance": "Elowen’s household financial position is recorded in connection with her personal circumstances. The property is jointly owned, mortgaged, and its value and liabilities are recorded in the questionnaire.",
      "supporting_facts": [
        "Elowen and Rhodri jointly own the property under title SL184920.",
        "It was valued at approximately £385,000 on 6 January 2026.",
        "The mortgage balance was approximately £146,500 at 1 March 2026, with £1,026 monthly repayments."
      ],
      "citations": [
        {
          "source": {
            "type": "document",
            "id": "Client questionnaire - Elowen M - returned.pdf",
            "name": "Client questionnaire - Elowen M - returned.pdf",
            "timestamp": "2026-03-17T00:00:00Z",
            "author": "Dr Elowen Marchant"
          },
          "passage": {
            "text": "We jointly own our home at 14 Celandine Row, Ludlow, under title number SL184920."
          }
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "location": "The Church of St Milburga, Stoke St Milborough; Cross on the Hill, Clee Hill",
      "type": "Funeral and family gathering venues",
      "relevance": "These locations provide context for the family relationship after Miriam’s death: Elowen, Rhodri and Tomas attended the funeral; Kit attended but left before the family gathering.",
      "supporting_facts": [
        "The funeral was on 6 March 2026 at the Church of St Milburga.",
        "Kit left before the gathering at Cross on the Hill."
      ],
      "citations": [
        {
          "source": {
            "type": "document",
            "id": "Client questionnaire - Elowen M - returned.pdf",
            "name": "Client questionnaire - Elowen M - returned.pdf",
            "timestamp": "2026-03-17T00:00:00Z",
            "author": "Dr Elowen Marchant"
          },
          "passage": {
            "text": "I attended her funeral at The Church of St Milburga, Stoke St Milborough, on 6 March 2026 with Rhodri and Tomas. My younger brother, Christopher “Kit” Gareth Marchant, attended but left before the family gathering at Cross on the Hill, Clee Hill."
          }
        }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "events": [
    {
      "event": "Miriam’s cognitive assessment and diagnosis",
      "date": "2023-11-16 to 2023-12-05",
      "type": "Medical/cognitive-history event",
      "impact": "Creates documented pre-existing cognitive difficulties, medication support needs and a diagnosis of mild vascular dementia before the purported 2025 will.",
      "parties_involved": [
        "Miriam Celeste Marchant",
        "Ronan Elias Preece",
        "County Hospital Memory Clinic",
        "Dr Saira Wenlock"
      ],
      "supporting_facts": [
        "Miriam reported increasing short-term memory difficulties.",
        "Her cognitive screening score was 22/30.",
        "The clinic concluded that the overall picture was consistent with mild vascular dementia.",
        "Ronan was assisting with medication organisation."
      ],
      "citations": [
        {
          "source": {
            "type": "document",
            "id": "Memory Clinic letter 05-12-23.pdf",
            "name": "Memory Clinic letter",
            "timestamp": "2023-12-05T00:00:00Z",
            "author": "County Hospital Memory Clinic"
          },
          "passage": {
            "text": "Your score was 22 out of 30. This result, together with the history provided and the available clinical information, indicates difficulties in several areas of cognition, particularly recent memory and aspects of planning and organisation."
          }
        },
        {
          "source": {
            "type": "document",
            "id": "Memory Clinic letter 05-12-23.pdf",
            "name": "Memory Clinic letter",
            "timestamp": "2023-12-05T00:00:00Z",
            "author": "County Hospital Memory Clinic"
          },
          "passage": {
            "text": "the overall picture is consistent with mild vascular dementia."
          }
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "event": "Miriam’s hospital admission, cancer identification and discharge home with Ronan",
      "date": "2025-03-08 to 2025-03-18",
      "type": "Medical event",
      "impact": "Documents serious physical illness, frailty-related support needs, pancreatic cancer identification, and Ronan’s role in reporting deterioration and receiving Miriam home on discharge before the August 2025 will-making events.",
      "parties_involved": [
        "Miriam Celeste Marchant",
        "Ronan Elias Preece",
        "County Hospital NHS Trust",
        "Dr Saira Wenlock"
      ],
      "supporting_facts": [
        "Miriam was admitted with poor intake, weight loss, dizziness and dehydration.",
        "CT identified a pancreatic mass, later assessed as pancreatic cancer.",
        "Miriam declined major pancreatic surgery.",
        "She was discharged to Quarry Bank with Ronan."
      ],
      "citations": [
        {
          "source": {
            "type": "document",
            "id": "Discharge-summary-March-2025.pdf",
            "name": "Discharge summary",
            "timestamp": "2025-03-18T00:00:00Z",
            "author": "County Hospital NHS Trust"
          },
          "passage": {
            "text": "Her partner, Ronan Elias Preece, reported that she had been eating and drinking very little for several days and had become increasingly weak."
          }
        },
        {
          "source": {
            "type": "document",
            "id": "Discharge-summary-March-2025.pdf",
            "name": "Discharge summary",
            "timestamp": "2025-03-18T00:00:00Z",
            "author": "County Hospital NHS Trust"
          },
          "passage": {
            "text": "Ms Marchant is discharged home to 8 Quarry Bank with Ronan Elias Preece."
          }
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "event": "Palliative chemotherapy commencement and oncology review",
      "date": "2025-05 (palliative chemotherapy commenced earlier in the month); 2025-05-20 (oncology review)",
      "type": "Medical-treatment event",
      "impact": "Confirms that Miriam had pancreatic adenocarcinoma and was receiving palliative chemotherapy several months before the purported 2025 will.",
      "parties_involved": [
        "Miriam Celeste Marchant",
        "Ronan Elias Preece",
        "County Hospital Oncology Service"
      ],
      "supporting_facts": [
        "Ronan attended the oncology consultation.",
        "Miriam had decided against major surgery.",
        "Palliative chemotherapy had commenced earlier in May 2025."
      ],
      "citations": [
        {
          "source": {
            "type": "document",
            "id": "Oncology-clinic-letter-May-2025.pdf",
            "name": "Oncology clinic letter",
            "timestamp": "2025-05-20T00:00:00Z",
            "author": "County Hospital Oncology Service"
          },
          "passage": {
            "text": "Clinic date: 20 May 2025"
          }
        },
        {
          "source": {
            "type": "document",
            "id": "Oncology-clinic-letter-May-2025.pdf",
            "name": "Oncology clinic letter",
            "timestamp": "2025-05-20T00:00:00Z",
            "author": "County Hospital Oncology Service"
          },
          "passage": {
            "text": "Palliative chemotherapy commenced earlier this month."
          }
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "event": "Transfers and payment from Miriam’s sole savings account",
      "date": "2025-08-15 to 2025-11-04",
      "type": "Financial event",
      "impact": "Records a £38,000 transfer to a Miriam/Ronan joint account and a £12,500 payment to Ronan during the period surrounding the purported will. Kit characterised the £38,000 transfer to the Miriam/Ronan joint Barclays account as a household contingency account. The Barclays statement records the £12,500 payment to Ronan Elias Preece on 4 November 2025 with the reference “carer support”.",
      "parties_involved": [
        "Miriam Celeste Marchant",
        "Ronan Elias Preece",
        "Barclays",
        "Christopher “Kit” Gareth Marchant"
      ],
      "supporting_facts": [
        "£38,000 was transferred to the joint account on 15 August 2025.",
        "£12,500 was paid to Ronan on 4 November 2025 with reference 'carer support'.",
        "Kit says the £38,000 was a household contingency account."
      ],
      "citations": [
        {
          "source": {
            "type": "document",
            "id": "Barclays_sole_accounts_Aug25-Jan26.pdf",
            "name": "Barclays_sole_accounts_Aug25-Jan26.pdf",
            "timestamp": "2026-01-31T00:00:00Z",
            "author": "Barclays"
          },
          "passage": {
            "text": "15 August 2025     Transfer to joint account — Miriam Celeste Marchant / Ronan Elias Preece                        £38,000.00"
          }
        },
        {
          "source": {
            "type": "document",
            "id": "Barclays_sole_accounts_Aug25-Jan26.pdf",
            "name": "Barclays_sole_accounts_Aug25-Jan26.pdf",
            "timestamp": "2026-01-31T00:00:00Z",
            "author": "Barclays"
          },
          "passage": {
            "text": "4 November 2025   Payment to Ronan Elias Preece                                             carer support         £12,500.00"
          }
        },
        {
          "source": {
            "type": "document",
            "id": "Kit email - estate update 04 March.msg",
            "name": "Kit email - estate update 04 March.msg",
            "timestamp": "2026-03-04T10:18:00Z",
            "author": "Christopher “Kit” Gareth Marchant"
          },
          "passage": {
            "text": "The £38,000 moved into the joint Barclays account on 15 August was a household contingency account, not money that had disappeared."
          }
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "event": "Purported 2025 will-preparation meeting at Quarry Bank",
      "date": "2025-08-18",
      "type": "Will-preparation event",
      "impact": "The only current account of the preparation process records an approximately 20-minute meeting between Miriam and Lydia Quill alone, with Ronan and Kit elsewhere in Quarry Bank. The preparation file, medical-record position, capacity-assessment position and draft-delivery route are not known to Elowen.",
      "parties_involved": [
        "Miriam Celeste Marchant",
        "Lydia Faye Quill",
        "Ronan Elias Preece",
        "Christopher “Kit” Gareth Marchant",
        "Briar & Keene Wills Ltd"
      ],
      "supporting_facts": [
        "Ronan had requested an urgent appointment in early August 2025.",
        "Quill visited Quarry Bank once before the signing meeting.",
        "Elowen understood that Quill met Miriam alone for approximately 20 minutes on 18 August 2025.",
        "Ronan and Kit were in Quarry Bank, but not understood to be in the meeting room."
      ],
      "citations": [
        {
          "source": {
            "type": "document",
            "id": "BriarKeene visit note 03-03-26.pdf",
            "name": "Personal note — visit to Briar & Keene Wills Ltd",
            "timestamp": "2026-03-03T00:00:00Z",
            "author": "Dr Elowen Marchant"
          },
          "passage": {
            "text": "My understanding from what Ms Quill said is that she met Mum alone for approximately 20 minutes on 18 August 2025. I understood that Ronan and Christopher “Kit” Gareth Marchant were in Quarry Bank during that visit. I did not understand from her that either of them was in the room for the meeting between Ms Quill and Mum."
          }
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "event": "Signing of Miriam Celeste Marchant’s final will",
      "date": "2025-08-22",
      "type": "Will event",
      "impact": "Miriam Celeste Marchant signed her final will on 22 August 2025 in the downstairs sitting room at 8 Quarry Bank. Lydia Faye Quill and Darren Michael Sallow attended Quarry Bank and were the two attesting witnesses. Ronan Elias Preece and Christopher “Kit” Gareth Marchant were present in the house, but Elowen does not know whether either was in the room when the will was explained or signed. The unsigned copy materially changes the available testamentary scheme: Kit is sole executor; Elowen receives £5,000; Ronan receives an enduring rent-free occupation right; Kit, Ronan and Ronan’s daughters receive benefits. Elowen has received only an unsigned copy and has not been provided with the signed original.",
      "parties_involved": [
        "Miriam Celeste Marchant",
        "Christopher “Kit” Gareth Marchant",
        "Dr Elowen Marchant",
        "Ronan Elias Preece",
        "Nerys Aline Preece",
        "Harriet Lorna Preece",
        "Briar & Keene Wills Ltd",
        "Lydia Faye Quill",
        "Darren Michael Sallow"
      ],
      "supporting_facts": [
        "The available instrument is marked 'COPY — UNSIGNED' and dated 22 August 2025.",
        "It appoints Kit sole executor and trustee.",
        "It gives Elowen £5,000, Kit £25,000 and the Volvo, and £10,000 each to Nerys and Harriet.",
        "It grants Ronan occupation rent-free for as long as he wishes."
      ],
      "citations": [
        {
          "source": {
            "type": "document",
            "id": "Will_Miriam_Marchant_unsigned.pdf",
            "name": "Will_Miriam_Marchant_unsigned.pdf",
            "timestamp": "2025-08-22T00:00:00Z",
            "author": "Briar & Keene Wills Ltd"
          },
          "passage": {
            "text": "COPY — UNSIGNED\n\nWILL OF MIRIAM CELESTE MARCHANT\n\nDATED 22 AUGUST 2025"
          }
        },
        {
          "source": {
            "type": "document",
            "id": "Will_Miriam_Marchant_unsigned.pdf",
            "name": "Will_Miriam_Marchant_unsigned.pdf",
            "timestamp": "2025-08-22T00:00:00Z",
            "author": "Briar & Keene Wills Ltd"
          },
          "passage": {
            "text": "I appoint my son, Christopher “Kit” Gareth Marchant, of 3 Old Maltings Yard, Tenbury Wells, Worcestershire, WR15 8HT, to be the sole Executor and Trustee of this my Will."
          }
        },
        {
          "source": {
            "type": "document",
            "id": "Client questionnaire - Elowen M - returned.pdf",
            "name": "Client questionnaire - Elowen M - returned.pdf",
            "timestamp": "2026-03-17T00:00:00Z",
            "author": "Dr Elowen Marchant"
          },
          "passage": {
            "text": "Miriam signed the final will on 22 August 2025 in the downstairs sitting room at 8 Quarry Bank. Lydia Faye Quill and Darren Michael Sallow attended Quarry Bank and were the two attesting witnesses. Ronan Elias Preece and Christopher “Kit” Gareth Marchant were in the house, but I do not know whether either was in the room when the will was explained or signed."
          }
        },
        {
          "source": {
            "type": "document",
            "id": "Email - Kit - will copy 27-02-26.msg",
            "name": "Email - Kit - will copy 27-02-26.msg",
            "timestamp": "2026-02-27T10:14:00Z",
            "author": "Christopher “Kit” Gareth Marchant"
          },
          "passage": {
            "text": "Following your repeated requests, I attach the copy I have.\n\nThis is what Mum wanted. I will send the signed original to the solicitors."
          }
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "event": "Miriam’s death",
      "date": "2026-02-14",
      "type": "Death and estate-administration event",
      "impact": "Miriam’s death crystallised the estate, activated the will provisions subject to survivorship, and ended her ability to clarify the will or its preparation directly.",
      "parties_involved": [
        "Miriam Celeste Marchant",
        "Ronan Elias Preece",
        "Severn Hospice"
      ],
      "supporting_facts": [
        "Miriam died on 14 February 2026 at Severn Hospice.",
        "The certified death entry was registered on 19 February 2026.",
        "Ronan was partner, present at death, and informant."
      ],
      "citations": [
        {
          "source": {
            "type": "document",
            "id": "Miriam death cert.pdf",
            "name": "Miriam death certificate",
            "timestamp": "2026-02-19T00:00:00Z",
            "author": "Shropshire Registration Service"
          },
          "passage": {
            "text": "Date of registration: 19 February 2026"
          }
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "event": "Kit discloses the asserted 2025 will position to Elowen",
      "date": "2026-02-23 to 2026-02-27",
      "type": "Post-death will-disclosure event",
      "impact": "Elowen was first told that she would receive £5,000 and Kit was sole executor, then received only an unsigned copy. Kit stated that he would send the signed original to solicitors.",
      "parties_involved": [
        "Christopher “Kit” Gareth Marchant",
        "Dr Elowen Marchant"
      ],
      "supporting_facts": [
        "On 23 February Kit stated that Elowen’s legacy was £5,000 and he was sole executor.",
        "On 26 February Kit said Miriam changed matters because she felt Elowen had abandoned her.",
        "On 27 February Kit attached the unsigned copy and said he would send the signed original to solicitors."
      ],
      "citations": [
        {
          "source": {
            "type": "message",
            "id": "Fwd: Mum",
            "name": "Fwd: Mum",
            "timestamp": "2026-02-26T09:18:00Z",
            "author": "Christopher “Kit” Gareth Marchant"
          },
          "passage": {
            "text": "Mum told me she had changed things because she felt you had abandoned her when she needed family."
          }
        },
        {
          "source": {
            "type": "document",
            "id": "Email - Kit - will copy 27-02-26.msg",
            "name": "Email - Kit - will copy 27-02-26.msg",
            "timestamp": "2026-02-27T10:14:00Z",
            "author": "Christopher “Kit” Gareth Marchant"
          },
          "passage": {
            "text": "Following your repeated requests, I attach the copy I have."
          }
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "event": "Elowen seeks the will-preparation file from Briar & Keene",
      "date": "2026-03-03",
      "type": "Evidence-gathering event",
      "impact": "Briar & Keene did not release the preparation file or original to Elowen without executor authority. This leaves the available evidence limited to Elowen’s account of what Quill said and the unsigned copy.",
      "parties_involved": [
        "Dr Elowen Marchant",
        "Lydia Faye Quill",
        "Briar & Keene Wills Ltd"
      ],
      "supporting_facts": [
        "Elowen requested instructions, meeting notes, drafts and correspondence.",
        "The request was refused without executor authority.",
        "Elowen left without the signed original or preparation papers."
      ],
      "citations": [
        {
          "source": {
            "type": "document",
            "id": "BriarKeene visit note 03-03-26.pdf",
            "name": "Personal note — visit to Briar & Keene Wills Ltd",
            "timestamp": "2026-03-03T00:00:00Z",
            "author": "Dr Elowen Marchant"
          },
          "passage": {
            "text": "I asked Ms Quill whether I could have the will-preparation file, including the instructions, notes of meetings, drafts and correspondence."
          }
        },
        {
          "source": {
            "type": "document",
            "id": "BriarKeene visit note 03-03-26.pdf",
            "name": "Personal note — visit to Briar & Keene Wills Ltd",
            "timestamp": "2026-03-03T00:00:00Z",
            "author": "Dr Elowen Marchant"
          },
          "passage": {
            "text": "I left without seeing the signed original will or any preparation papers."
          }
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "event": "No probate grant located",
      "date": "2026-04-07",
      "type": "Probate-status event",
      "impact": "As at the search date, no grant record had been located. This supports the current absence of a grant record but does not establish that no application exists or will be made.",
      "parties_involved": [
        "HM Courts & Tribunals Service",
        "Miriam Celeste Marchant",
        "Christopher “Kit” Gareth Marchant"
      ],
      "supporting_facts": [
        "The probate search was made on 7 April 2026.",
        "No grant of probate or letters of administration record was located.",
        "The result is expressly not confirmation of the status of any application."
      ],
      "citations": [
        {
          "source": {
            "type": "document",
            "id": "Probate search result 07-04-2026.pdf",
            "name": "Probate records search result",
            "timestamp": "2026-04-07T00:00:00Z",
            "author": "HM Courts & Tribunals Service"
          },
          "passage": {
            "text": "It is not confirmation of whether an application for a grant has been made, is awaiting processing, has been withdrawn, or may be submitted later."
          }
        }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "how": [
    {
      "category": "Competing testamentary instruments and changed disposition",
      "items": [
        {
          "description": "The available 2004 and 2018 wills both revoke earlier testamentary dispositions. The 2018 will provides for Elowen and Kit equally after a two-year occupation right for Ronan. The purported 2025 copy instead appoints Kit alone, gives Elowen a £5,000 legacy, makes benefits for Kit and Ronan’s daughters, and materially enlarges Ronan’s occupation right. The 2025 copy’s later revocation clause would matter if the instrument is established as Miriam’s operative will, but the signed original is not in the file.",
          "supporting_facts": [
            "The 2018 will appoints Elowen and Kit as executors and trustees and gives residue equally between them.",
            "The 2018 occupation right for Ronan is for two years from death.",
            "The 2025 copy names Kit sole executor and gives Ronan rent-free occupation for as long as he wishes.",
            "The 2025 copy is expressly an unsigned copy."
          ],
          "implications": "The validity, execution and contents of the purported 2025 will are central because its asserted effect differs substantially from the 2018 scheme and changes both the beneficial provision and executor role.",
          "citations": [
            {
              "source": {
                "type": "document",
                "id": "scan_20260311_101842.pdf",
                "name": "Last Will and Testament of Miriam Celeste Marchant dated 9 April 2018",
                "timestamp": "2018-04-09T00:00:00Z",
                "author": "Dovetail Legal LLP"
              },
              "passage": {
                "text": "I GIVE all the residue of my estate, of whatever nature and wherever situated, to my Trustees upon trust for my daughter, DR ELOWEN MARCHANT, and my son, CHRISTOPHER “KIT” GARETH MARCHANT, in equal shares absolutely"
              }
            },
            {
              "source": {
                "type": "document",
                "id": "Will_Miriam_Marchant_unsigned.pdf",
                "name": "Will of Miriam Celeste Marchant dated 22 August 2025 (copy — unsigned)",
                "timestamp": "2025-08-22T00:00:00Z",
                "author": "Briar & Keene Wills Ltd"
              },
              "passage": {
                "text": "to my daughter Dr Elowen Marchant, of 14 Celandine Row, Ludlow, Shropshire, SY8 1QH, the sum of FIVE THOUSAND POUNDS (£5,000);"
              }
            }
          ]
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "category": "Will preparation, execution evidence and access to documents",
      "items": [
        {
          "description": "The only 2025 instrument provided is an unsigned copy sent by Kit. Elowen has not been shown the signed original. Briar & Keene would not release the preparation file without the purported executor’s authority, so the instructions, attendance notes, drafts, correspondence and original remain unavailable on this file.",
          "supporting_facts": [
            "Kit attached an unsigned copy on 27 February 2026 and said he would send the signed original to solicitors.",
            "Elowen requested the preparation file from Briar & Keene on 3 March 2026.",
            "Quill refused release without executor authority.",
            "The solicitor’s April note confirms no signed original has been provided to Elowen."
          ],
          "implications": "The signed original has not been provided to Elowen, but the established execution particulars are that Miriam signed the final will in the downstairs sitting room at 8 Quarry Bank on 22 August 2025 and Lydia Faye Quill and Darren Michael Sallow were the two attesting witnesses. Further evidence from the signed original, Briar & Keene’s preparation file, Lydia Quill and Darren Sallow may still be material to establishing the position.",
          "citations": [
            {
              "source": {
                "type": "note",
                "id": "note by Amira Shah, Solicitor 2026-04-08",
                "name": "File note — documents received and probate search",
                "timestamp": "2026-04-08T00:00:00Z",
                "author": "Amira Shah, Solicitor"
              },
              "passage": {
                "text": "No signed original of the will dated 22 August 2025 has been provided to Elowen."
              }
            },
            {
              "source": {
                "type": "document",
                "id": "BriarKeene visit note 03-03-26.pdf",
                "name": "Personal note — visit to Briar & Keene Wills Ltd",
                "timestamp": "2026-03-03T00:00:00Z",
                "author": "Dr Elowen Marchant"
              },
              "passage": {
                "text": "I asked Ms Quill whether I could have the will-preparation file, including the instructions, notes of meetings, drafts and correspondence."
              }
            }
          ]
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "category": "Cognitive and health context at the time of the purported change",
      "items": [
        {
          "description": "Miriam had documented mild vascular dementia from late 2023, including short-term-memory and planning/organisation difficulties, and Ronan assisted with medication. In 2025 she had pancreatic cancer, declined major surgery, commenced palliative chemotherapy, and had tiredness and reduced appetite. These records pre-date the reported August 2025 will-making events but do not themselves state Miriam’s capacity on 18 or 22 August 2025.",
          "supporting_facts": [
            "The Memory Clinic recorded a score of 22/30 and mild vascular dementia.",
            "The March 2025 discharge summary records support needs with medicines and hydration.",
            "Oncology recorded a palliative treatment approach and chemotherapy before August 2025.",
            "Elowen does not know whether a capacity assessment or GP contact occurred during preparation of the 2025 will."
          ],
          "implications": "The medical and preparation records are relevant evidence sources for understanding Miriam’s functioning and the information available to the will writer, while the present file does not contain a contemporaneous capacity assessment or the preparation notes.",
          "citations": [
            {
              "source": {
                "type": "document",
                "id": "Memory Clinic letter 05-12-23.pdf",
                "name": "Memory Clinic letter",
                "timestamp": "2023-12-05T00:00:00Z",
                "author": "County Hospital Memory Clinic"
              },
              "passage": {
                "text": "Ronan has been providing reminders and assistance with organising medication."
              }
            },
            {
              "source": {
                "type": "document",
                "id": "Discharge-summary-March-2025.pdf",
                "name": "Discharge summary",
                "timestamp": "2025-03-18T00:00:00Z",
                "author": "County Hospital NHS Trust"
              },
              "passage": {
                "text": "Relevant background\n\nType 2 diabetes, hypertension, mild vascular dementia and reduced mobility following a previous left wrist fracture. Ms Marchant was assessed as requiring support with medicines and hydration during this admission."
              }
            },
            {
              "source": {
                "type": "document",
                "id": "BriarKeene visit note 03-03-26.pdf",
                "name": "Personal note — visit to Briar & Keene Wills Ltd",
                "timestamp": "2026-03-03T00:00:00Z",
                "author": "Dr Elowen Marchant"
              },
              "passage": {
                "text": "I asked whether there had been a capacity assessment before the will was made. I do not know whether Ms Quill requested a capacity assessment."
              }
            }
          ]
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "category": "Relationships, involvement and asserted reasons for the change",
      "items": [
        {
          "description": "Ronan was Miriam’s resident partner and involved in her health support; he initiated contact with Briar & Keene for an urgent update and was in Quarry Bank when Quill reportedly met Miriam. Kit was also reportedly in the property. Elowen says her relationship with Miriam had been close for much of her life, but Kit asserted in an email that Miriam felt Elowen had abandoned her. Elowen’s 2024 letter expresses concern about vulnerability and isolation while apologising for how she raised those concerns.",
          "supporting_facts": [
            "Ronan requested the urgent August 2025 appointment.",
            "Ronan and Kit were said to be in Quarry Bank during Quill’s 18 August visit, though not in the meeting room.",
            "Kit gave Elowen an asserted explanation for Miriam changing her testamentary arrangements.",
            "Elowen’s 10 July 2024 letter said she was worried Miriam had become more vulnerable and isolated."
          ],
          "implications": "The file identifies differing accounts and relationship context bearing on why the 2025 dispositions may have changed. These are accounts and contemporaneous communications, not a resolved finding about Miriam’s wishes or any person’s conduct.",
          "citations": [
            {
              "source": {
                "type": "document",
                "id": "IMG_20250710_184433.jpg",
                "name": "Photograph of Elowen’s letter dated 10 July 2024",
                "timestamp": "2024-07-10T00:00:00Z",
                "author": "Dr Elowen Marchant"
              },
              "passage": {
                "text": "My worry is that you have become more vulnerable and that you are more isolated than you used to be."
              }
            },
            {
              "source": {
                "type": "message",
                "id": "Fwd: Mum",
                "name": "Fwd: Mum",
                "timestamp": "2026-02-26T09:18:00Z",
                "author": "Christopher “Kit” Gareth Marchant"
              },
              "passage": {
                "text": "Mum told me she had changed things because she felt you had abandoned her when she needed family."
              }
            }
          ]
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "category": "Estate property, liquidity and administration status",
      "items": [
        {
          "description": "Quarry Bank is recorded as Miriam’s mortgage-free sole property and is by far the largest identified asset, but any ongoing occupation right affects vacant-possession saleability. The estate schedule is expressly a working list rather than estate accounts. Kit says he intends to administer through solicitors and pay debts and funeral expenses first; he has not applied personally for a grant, and the probate search found no grant record as at 7 April 2026.",
          "supporting_facts": [
            "The working schedule estimates Quarry Bank at £635,000 and records Ronan’s lifetime occupation right as affecting saleability.",
            "Pember & Stagg’s £620,000–£650,000 figure is preliminary and not a formal probate valuation.",
            "Kit reports about £5,940 funeral costs and £2,100 credit-card debt.",
            "The care provider’s final account was settled in full.",
            "No grant record was located on the 7 April search."
          ],
          "implications": "The file supports the need to distinguish provisional asset information, verified liabilities and administration steps. Estate value, available liquidity, property saleability and the claimed occupation right may affect how the asserted dispositions can be implemented, but final accounts and probate valuation evidence are not supplied.",
          "citations": [
            {
              "source": {
                "type": "document",
                "id": "Estate assets - Elowen notes 12.3.26.xlsx",
                "name": "ESTATE ASSETS — WORKING SCHEDULE",
                "timestamp": "2026-03-12T00:00:00Z",
                "author": "Dr Elowen Marchant"
              },
              "passage": {
                "text": "Values are approximate only unless otherwise stated. I have not been given estate accounts, final asset valuations, debt details, or the balance of the joint Barclays account."
              }
            },
            {
              "source": {
                "type": "document",
                "id": "Kit email - estate update 04 March.msg",
                "name": "Kit email - estate update 04 March.msg",
                "timestamp": "2026-03-04T10:18:00Z",
                "author": "Christopher “Kit” Gareth Marchant"
              },
              "passage": {
                "text": "My intention is to pay Mum’s debts and funeral expenses first, then deal with the gifts in the will."
              }
            },
            {
              "source": {
                "type": "document",
                "id": "Probate search result 07-04-2026.pdf",
                "name": "Probate records search result",
                "timestamp": "2026-04-07T00:00:00Z",
                "author": "HM Courts & Tribunals Service"
              },
              "passage": {
                "text": "No grant of probate or letters of administration record has been located for Miriam Celeste Marchant, deceased, as at 7 April 2026."
              }
            }
          ]
        }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "generated_at": "2026-09-02T16:15:25+00:00",
  "model": "gpt-5.6-terra",
  "workflow_id": null
}
meta/What the task was built from

In final form: the narrative and the fact sheet (facts stamped F001, F002, …), the legal research memo and the law sheet it distils to (L01, L02, …), the content plan, required-facts.json (the numbered facts the criteria rest on, and which criteria rest on which) and known-issues.json, anything the verifiers raised and never resolved. Alongside them pipeline.json, the manifest, which records the pipeline version and generating model, a fingerprint of every prompt used, the research questions and tool calls, how the surviving criteria are grounded, what the checks before generation dropped, expanded or patched, and the round-by-round verification history. It is the file to read to know how a task came to be the way it is.

debug/What happened, step by step

The same run, unabridged. Every stage writes its output here as it is produced, numbered in order, including the drafts that the checks and the verifiers then changed: the task as first written and again after ungrounded criteria were dropped, the plan as drafted and again after the review that expands merged files and the leak and coverage checks, and for each of the four verifiers its report for every round beside the artefacts it produced. Where meta/ answers what a task is built from, this answers what happened, which is what a defect gets traced through.

The bundle carries everything task-specific. Alongside every benchmark, a separate check system enforces the requirements that apply to all work regardless of the task: every claim an output makes is extracted at runtime and checked as faithful to the context it was given, and the output is checked against the guardrails extracted from the prompt it ran under. A task never has to restate them, and a strong task score cannot compensate for failing them.

3. How a task is made

Generation runs as a fixed sequence of stages, each one a function with explicit inputs and a single output. The factory has been built twice. The first build proved the verification machinery and produced everything shown on this page. The second, now the live pipeline, moves verification inside each stage: an artefact is verified, then locked, and later stages cannot change it. Both are kept here as the record.

Overview

The ratchet: verify inside the stage, then lock

In the first build, most verification ran at the end, and its loops crossed stage boundaries: a verifier could send work back to any earlier stage. Two problems followed. Runs looped rather than converging, and what a late verifier could not fix, the pipeline adapted to. Criteria were weakened to match the file, and a failed document was dropped with its facts re-assigned to other items.

The second build moves verification inside each stage. An artefact is generated, verified against everything locked before it, amended, and then locked. Later stages receive it labelled canonical and uneditable: they may not change it, and they may not raise an issue against it. The only way to amend an artefact is to re-run its own stage before the lock. Where a later stage cannot satisfy what is locked above it, the run stops and records the cause instead of adjusting earlier work to fit.

The rest carries forward from the first build: generation on the cheaper model with every verifier on the stronger one, evidence-bound issues, the bounded remits, the same bundle at the end. On the rail, a lock marks where each artefact freezes, and the arrow from a lock back into its stage is that stage's verify-and-amend loop. Content is the only stage without a lock of its own; its loop runs until the file satisfies everything locked above it.

Nineteen generation and verification prompts share one conventions block, prepended verbatim to each: the purpose of the exercise, the ratchet, the split between the public and the invented world, the facts semantics, the rendering and signature conventions, the answer firewall, and the evidence and severity rules. One source of truth replaced per-prompt copies whose drift caused every generator-versus-verifier deadlock, and because the prefix is byte-identical everywhere it is served from the provider's cached price tier.

The pipeline now lives in the taskgen package (one module per stage, prompts as files, a pytest suite, a CLI); the notebook is retired. The build is complete, and generation rounds are running ahead of the first expert review. The excerpts on each stage below are from one bundle of the newest complete round, a contested will.

Select a stage to read what it does and the property of the output it exists to protect.

Protects: a single, sound account of the facts

1. Facts

The narrative and fact sheet are generated together, then verified by a tool-equipped loop: a calculator for the arithmetic, web search for the public world, the legal tools for legal possibility. The narrative is patched to match after every round.

The remit splits the world in two. The public world must be real: courts, councils, registries, fees, statutes, and postcodes that belong to their towns. The private world is invented by design; it is never looked up and never replaced, only a contradiction counts against it, and a correction makes the smallest change that resolves the problem.

  • Children appear by first name, age and relationship only.
  • Full contact details exist only for the key parties: the client, the opponents, their solicitors. Everyone else is a name and a role.

The gate asks that the account be consistent, arithmetically sound and realistic, not exhaustive: the fact sheet fixes what happened and leaves document-level detail to the later stages. A deterministic lint also runs over it, checking the certainties a model habitually fumbles: weekday against date (one early sheet locked "Saturday 18 July 2025", which is a Friday), calendar-impossible dates, reversed ranges, stated sums, placeholder domains, postcode and ZIP geography, phone shapes, and national identifiers with real checksums. A lint-clean sheet is a hard condition of the lock.

The lock itself is a separate pass with a single question: do the narrative and the fact sheet disagree anywhere? Only when the answer is no does the stage lock; a pair that cannot be locked is a terminal failure, never shipped. At the lock every fact line is stamped with an id (F001, F002 and so on), and those ids are the grounding vocabulary for everything downstream.

Fact sheet (extract) · F-ids stamped at the lock
F001: Dr Elowen Marchant is the client, aged 46, born 19 November 1979, and is the elder biological daughter of Miriam Celeste Marchant.
F002: Dr Elowen Marchant lives with her husband at 14 Celandine Row, Ludlow, Shropshire, SY8 1QH.
F003: Dr Elowen Marchant’s contact email is elowen.marchant@celandinerow.testmail.uk and her telephone number is 01584 555 014.

Protects: legal accuracy

2. Law

Research questions are derived from the locked facts and answered by a research agent with the legislation, case-law and practice-guide tools. The memo carries a citation for every proposition, written out in full.

The authoritative source depends on the domain. legislation.gov.uk is primary for statutes and instruments; the published Immigration Rules and the courts' procedure rules are primary for theirs. The first build treated legislation.gov.uk as primary everywhere, and on one task lost two dozen criteria to propositions stamped unverified that the right source had established.

The gate is decomposed rather than run as one review. First, every proposition marked unverified gets its own worker on the cheap model, running in parallel with the research tools and a single job: establish this proposition from the authoritative source, escalating once to the stronger model. The citation sweep then checks that every citation resolves through the tools and that the quoted words match the retrieved text, with later rounds scoped to verifying the corrections; a web citation carries the run's real date. A proposition that still cannot be established is cut, and corrections are applied mechanically: the gate quotes the offending span and states the corrected text, and code splices it byte-for-byte, with a patch model touching the memo only when a quote cannot be located. Memos now lock with zero to three unverified propositions, against three to twenty-four before the decomposition.

The gated memo is then distilled into a law sheet: atomic propositions, each carrying an id (L01, L02 and so on), the statement, its full citation, and a tether to the memo sentence it came from. Tethers are checked in code; an untethered proposition is re-asked once, then dropped. The sheet may not say anything the gate did not verify, it ships in meta/, and with the memo it locks as the only law that exists for the task.

law-sheet.json (one proposition)
{
  "id": "L01",
  "statement": "Eligibility to apply under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 requires the deceased to have died domiciled in England and Wales.",
  "citation": "Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975, section 1(1).",
  "memo_quote": "The matter is treated as governed by England and Wales law because that is the stated jurisdiction; eligibility under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 additionally requires that the deceased died domiciled in England and Wales."
}

Protects: judgeability and grounding

3. Task and criteria

The task and its criteria are written from the locked facts, the locked law sheet and the real form field outlines. The criteria verification that used to run after the file was built now runs here, before any content exists. The first build's own numbers motivated the move: across its last two rounds, 57% of the verdicts that changed a criterion never referenced the content at all.

Grounding is a contract of ids rather than copied quotes: each criterion cites the facts and propositions it rests on as fact_refs and law_refs. Code checks that every id exists, and the gate judges whether the criterion actually aligns with what those ids say.

The gate checks:

  • verbatim fact and law grounding;
  • form-field validity against the real field outline;
  • answerability in principle: a competent lawyer could establish this from documents these facts could plausibly generate;
  • coverage of the legal complexities the research surfaced;
  • the minimum criteria count.

Where the gate finds a legal complexity no criterion covers, the top-up is bounded: adjudicated once, inside a band of 25 to 50 criteria, with complexity deciding where a task lands. A task over the ceiling is brought back by consolidating overlapping criteria, never by trimming in code. Two form conventions sit here: a completed official form is judged on its content, never on a prescribed layout, and the blank definitions come from the real form pipeline and are not themselves verified; one that cannot be fetched is recorded as a note rather than failing the run.

Then it locks. From that point criteria are never revised, dropped or weakened.

One criterion, grounded by reference
{
  "id": "010",
  "deliverables": [
    "advice-letter.docx"
  ],
  "match_criteria": "PASS if the advice letter identifies Lydia Faye Quill and Darren Michael Sallow as the two stated attesting witnesses and says their execution evidence should be obtained. FAIL if either witness is omitted, a different witness is named, or no recommendation to obtain their …",
  "fact_refs": [
    "F198",
    "F199"
  ],
  "law_refs": [
    "L04",
    "L19"
  ]
}

Protects: feasibility

4. Plan

One planning pass and the merge-and-expand review, then checks that are mostly deterministic:

  • every required fact has a home whose document type can naturally carry it;
  • an item whose brief implies a span of entries has the length budget to hold them;
  • no item is asked to establish a fact that postdates it;
  • key parties have contact records, filenames look the way files really arrive, and about one in ten client documents is tangential.

The lock is strict. The content stage cannot amend the plan, and a plan defect discovered later ends the run with the defect recorded. The remedy is to regenerate the plan.

One planned item
{
  "name": "Email - Kit - will copy 27-02-26.msg",
  "date": "2026-02-27",
  "purpose": "Records Kit supplying an unsigned copy of the final will and his stated handling of the original.",
  "fact_ids": [
    "F205",
    "F219"
  ],
  "title": "Kit Marchant email enclosing unsigned will copy",
  "document_type": "email message"
}

Protects: fidelity

5. Content

Computed records first

Before any item is written, every planned tabular numeric record (a bank statement, a ledger, a timesheet) is computed: the model invents only the dates, descriptions and signed movements, grounded in the locked facts, and code derives every balance, total and count and renders the table as a canonical block. Generators reproduce the blocks verbatim, and the derived summary lines are shared across sibling items, so a letter quoting the arrears and the rent account stating them draw from one computed source. Arithmetic errors in this class become structurally impossible; a record that cannot be validated falls back to the ordinary generator rather than ending the task.

Generation and the completeness gate

Per-item generation runs through the evidenced completeness gate. Each gap the gate reports is anchored to a checklist id (a fact F#, a requirement clause R#) with its evidence quoted, and an unanchored gap is discarded, so the gate cannot wander into style or legal opinion. Findings live in a ledger held in code: the question shrinks as findings settle, a re-raised finding gets one focused adjudication, and a settled one reopens only if a later fix disturbs the passage it is tied to.

Gate retries are revisions of the standing draft, never regenerations from scratch (regeneration is why summarised ledgers survived five attempts in the first build), with one escalation to the stronger model. An item that still fails keeps its best draft and a flag: a planned document type never disappears, because in the first build a dropped rent ledger left twelve of twenty-nine criteria resting on figures whose primary source was gone. The deterministic lint runs in the gate's pre-pass and on every fixer revision, reading document bodies: table totals, row-count claims, durations, and balance chains seeded from the opening balance. A signature is the signatory's name or a [SIGNATURE] marker, with the execution particulars still required as text.

The panel

The finished file then goes to three verifiers running in parallel:

  • coverage: every required fact is establishable from the file, and every criterion answerable;
  • consistency: cross-item particulars agree with each other and with the locked fact sheet; a conflicting pair that recurs becomes one definitive pair-diff, settled until either document changes;
  • integrity: realism, leaks, placeholders, author voice, time discipline, arithmetic.

All three emit the same evidence-bound issues, deduplicated and grouped per item. Where a fix is exact text surgery (delete these two rows, replace this value), the verifier supplies the edit and it is applied byte-for-byte in code: unique match, all or nothing, a miss falling through to the editor model, and every edited item re-verified. In the newest complete round, all ten such edits applied cleanly. An item already revised once is steered to edits, which ended the pattern of full rewrites fixing one defect and regressing another.

Round one sweeps the whole file. Later rounds are scoped to unresolved issues, defects in changed text, and contradictions between changed text and anything else, and round history is shared so an issue is not re-litigated. The file is released when no blocking issue remains. When the round cap is reached with the final fixes applied, one scoped confirmation pass decides between clean and INCOMPLETE rather than assuming the worst; exhaustion is recorded as INCOMPLETE on the manifest.

files/ · Barclays_sole_accounts_Aug25-Jan26.pdf (extract) · every figure computed in code
BARCLAYS

Opening balance at 1 August 2025: £82,450.00
Closing balance at 30 November 2025: £35,342.50

Date               Description                                                               Reference             Money out   Money in   Balance
15 August 2025     Transfer to joint account — Miriam Celeste Marchant / Ronan Elias Preece                        £38,000.00  —          £44,450.00
31 August 2025     Interest paid                                                                                   —           £142.18    £44,592.18
12 September 2025  Transfer in                                                               MCM reserve transfer  —           £5,000.00  £49,592.18
30 September 2025  Interest paid                                                                                   —           £96.41     £49,688.59
18 October 2025    Transfer out                                                              household funds       £2,000.00   —          £47,688.59
31 October 2025    Interest paid                                                                                   —           £92.67     £47,781.26
…
files/ · Will_Miriam_Marchant_unsigned.pdf (extract)
BRIAR & KEENE WILLS LTD
47 Corve Street
Ludlow
SY8 1DU
COPY — UNSIGNED
WILL OF MIRIAM CELESTE MARCHANT
DATED 22 AUGUST 2025
I, MIRIAM CELESTE MARCHANT, of 8 Quarry Bank, Clee Hill, Shropshire, SY8 3PL, declare this to be my Will.
1. REVOCATION
I revoke all former wills and testamentary dispositions previously made by me.
2. APPOINTMENT OF EXECUTOR
I appoint my son, Christopher “Kit” Gareth Marchant, of 3 Old Maltings Yard, Tenbury Wells, Worcestershire, WR15 8HT, to be the sole Executor and Trustee of this my Will. In this Will, the expression “my Trustees” means the Executor and Trustee for the time being of this Will.

Protects: a faithful orientation

6. Case context object

Generated from the locked artefacts and the finished file, and checked for factual truth only: an entity invented or missed, or a wrong relationship or date, is a defect; wording and emphasis are not.

Fixes are chain-of-key, mirroring how the platform updates a live context object. Each defect names one entry by section and key, with a verbatim quote; only the named entries are regenerated (removals are quote-gated, additions are allowed), and every other key stays byte-identical. Whole-object regeneration was retired because rewriting everything minted new defects while fixing old ones. Then it locks.

cco.json (extract)
{
  "entities_and_roles": [
    {
      "name": "Dr Elowen Marchant",
      "role": "Client, daughter, potential claimant and beneficiary under earlier wills",
      "type": "individual",
      "description": "Miriam’s elder biological daughter. She says she expected equal treatment with Kit under the 2018 will, but was told the purported 2025 will gives her £5,000. She seeks information and advice about challenging the final will and preserving estate assets.",
      "supporting_facts": [
        "Elowen is Miriam’s elder biological daughter.",
        "She received an unsigned copy of the will dated 22 August 2025 after repeated requests.",
        "The unsigned copy gives her a £5,000 pecuniary legacy.",
        "She has not seen the signed original or will-preparation papers."
      ],
      "citations": [
        {
          "source": {
            "type": "document",
            "id": "Client questionnaire - Elowen M - returned.pdf",
            "name": "Client questionnaire - Elowen M - returned.pdf",
            "timestamp": "2026-03-17T00:00:00Z",
  …

Protects: auditability

7. Bundle and provenance

The bundle contract is unchanged: the same layout, and a manifest recording both models, a fingerprint of every prompt, per-stage verification rounds and the fact-sheet corrections. The manifest also records exact token usage per stage per model, split across the cached and cache-write price tiers, with a dollar estimate per task: the newest complete round ran $7–$14 per task, about $76 for the seven. known-issues.json carries whatever the panel and the law gate left unresolved, the gate flags, and any form definition that could not be fetched. A lost or flagged document type, and an INCOMPLETE run, surface in the round-review table rather than sitting in the metadata.

meta/pipeline.json (extract)
{
  "pipeline_version": "2.2.1",
  "model": "gpt-5.6-terra",
  "verifier_model": "gpt-5.6-sol",
  "criteria": 45,
  "fact_sheet_corrections": 29,
  "incomplete": false,
  "usage": {
    "stages": {
      "1-facts": "…",
      "…": "…"
    },
    "total": {
      "calls": 162,
      "input": 3079816,
      "cached": 1070629,
      "cache_writes": 1117781,
      "output": 178098
    },
    "estimated_cost_usd": 9.1
  },
  "prompt_hashes": {
    "HOUSE_RULES": "d20cb38564e1",
    "…": "…"
  }
}

Overview · superseded by v2

A fixed sequence, one function per stage

The first build ran as a Jupyter notebook, which suited the phase: prompts and stages changed daily and could be re-run in place while the pipeline's shape was still being found. Its last version is the parity baseline for the second build. Every excerpt below is its output, taken verbatim from one generated bundle (an undefended divorce), so the same task can be followed from stage to stage.

Every stage takes the previous stage's output and produces one artefact of its own, written to disk as it is made. A run that dies partway through can resume from whatever its folder already holds, and tasks are generated in batches, each in its own thread, so one failure takes down only its own task.

Most stages are language-model calls, split across two models: generation on one, and every verifier, the audit, the completeness gate and the context-object check on the stronger other. Between the model calls sit checks in ordinary code, which settle the questions that have a right answer: whether a quotation appears in the source it claims, and whether every fact a criterion rests on is assigned to something in the file.

The rail marks the three places the sequence does not run forwards. The fact sheet is corrected against its own verifier before anything is built on it. At verification, the content verifier and the consistency audit send the matter file back to be rewritten, and the task verifier sends the criteria back to be revised, up to three rounds each. These cross-stage loops are what the second build removes.

Select a stage to read what it does and the property of the output it exists to protect.

Protects: the right law for the right place

1. Specification

A task begins as a one-line brief ("a private landlord wants to evict a tenant in rent arrears; assess the grounds and complete the notice") and a platform jurisdiction identifier. The identifier is resolved into the market and the legal sources to use: legislation.gov.uk and the Find Case Law service for England and Wales, OpenLaws and CourtListener for a US state, plus Lawhive's own index of practice guidance.

Nothing else in the pipeline names a country. The same instructions run for every jurisdiction; only the tools and the brief carry the location, so a Welsh tenancy task and an Arizona probate task are made by the same process with different plumbing.

The specification, and what it resolves to
{
  "slug": "uncontested-divorce-d8",
  "jurisdiction": "uk-england_wales",
  "brief": "A straightforward no-fault divorce where both spouses agree; complete the D8 application and advise the client on the process, timeline and the separate financial order"
}

# resolved to
{
  "id": "uk-england_wales",
  "market": "GB",
  "primary_source": "england-and-wales",
  "legal_index": "uk-england_wales"
}

Protects: coherence

2. Narrative and fact sheet

The brief is expanded into a long factual narrative: the people, their relationships, assets, history, health where relevant, and what the client wants, written as prose with the particulars a real file carries. It is instructed to place the matter where the ordinary law for that kind of work applies unless the brief says otherwise, and to choose specific, non-obvious people and places.

From the narrative a fact sheet is extracted: one line per fact, grouped, with nothing added. The fact sheet is the single source of truth for everything downstream. Every document generated later must agree with it, every disagreement found later is resolved in its favour, and every fact-based criterion quotes it.

Because everything downstream resolves to the fact sheet, the fact sheet is itself verified before anything is built on it. A verifier with the research tools reads it against the narrative and corrects what it finds, patching the narrative to match. Corrections state facts in the same voice and never add analysis. Each is the smallest change that resolves the problem: where a total and its components disagree, it is usually the components that move, so figures already quoted in letters and notices are left standing.

Narrative (extract)
Mair and Tobias married on 14 June 2008 at St Chad’s Church, 25 St Chad’s Road, Lichfield, Staffordshire, WS13 7BY, followed by a civil reception at The George Hotel, Bird Street, Lichfield. The marriage certificate records Mair’s name as Mairwen Elin Hughes and Tobias’s name as Tobias Henrik Dyer. Mair changed her surname from Hughes to Pritchard by deed poll on 9 October 2003, before the marriage, following her parents’ separation. She did not use the surname Dyer after marriage.
Fact sheet, the same passage reduced
- Mair’s name on the marriage certificate is Mairwen Elin Hughes.
- Mair changed her surname from Hughes to Pritchard by deed poll on 9 October 2003, before the marriage, following her parents’ separation.
- Mair and Tobias married on 14 June 2008 at St Chad’s Church, 25 St Chad’s Road, Lichfield, Staffordshire, WS13 7BY.
- Ibrahim and Saskia Qureshi are married to each other.
- Nether Stowe School is at St Chad’s Road, Lichfield, WS13 7NB.

Protects: legal accuracy

3. Legal research

A set of research questions is derived from the narrative, then answered by a research agent running Lawrence's own legal-research skill, with the same legislation, case-law and practice-guide tools Lawrence uses in production. The agent must read every provision and judgment it relies on rather than citing from search results, and where a first pass comes back thin it is required to go again with different queries and sources.

The memo it writes is held to a citation rule: every sentence stating what the law is ends with a citation to a source read in that session, and anything the agent believes but could not find is marked unverified on its own line rather than stated as fact. Facts that primary sources do not hold, such as court fees, official form wording and procedural guidance, may be confirmed by web search and are cited with their source and retrieval date as a lower class of grounding; a web page can never override a provision or judgment that was read.

The memo then becomes the only law that exists for the task: criteria may rest on it and on nothing else.

Legal research memo (extract)
If he is personally served and does not acknowledge, the process server must file a certificate stating date, time and identification method. (FPR 2010, r 6.17)

The court may dispense with service only where service by any permitted method is impracticable, and the application must be supported by evidence. (FPR 2010, r 6.20)

A financial-order application may be made in the divorce application or at any time after the divorce application has been made. (FPR 2010, r 9.4)

Protects: judgeability and grounding

4. Task and criteria

With the facts and the law in hand, the task is written: platform-style instructions, the deliverables, and the criteria. Where completing an official form is part of the work, the author is shown the platform's library of annotated form definitions field by field and names the form as a deliverable. Criteria for it refer to those fields, and the completed form is judged by its field values.

Criteria are spread across the kinds worth checking, weighted towards checks that the deliverable carries the right names, dates, figures and references, since those are the cheapest way to detect an agent that has not read the file. A task that comes back with fewer than twenty-five criteria is sent back once to cover what it missed.

Each criterion must quote, verbatim, the fact-sheet lines and research sentences it rests on. That quotation is checked mechanically: a grounding not found in the materials is sent back once for an exact quote, and a criterion that still cannot be grounded is dropped. Criteria resting on law alone are permitted, because the agent is expected to research the law itself. Criteria resting on facts must also be supported by the file, which the next stage guarantees.

The criteria exist for the judge, and this is the last stage that sees them. What travels onwards is the facts they rest on.

One criterion, with its grounding
{
  "id": "004",
  "deliverables": [
    "d8-completed.pdf"
  ],
  "match_criteria": "PASS if field [9] is selected and field [7] explains that Mairwen Elin Pritchard was Mairwen Elin Hughes on the certificate and changed surname by deed poll dated 9 October 2003 before the marriage. FAIL if the name mismatch or the deed poll explanation is …",
  "fact_grounding": [
    "- Mair’s name on the marriage certificate is **Mairwen Elin Hughes**.",
    "- Mair changed her surname from Hughes to Pritchard by deed poll on **9 October 2003**, before the marriage, following her parents’ separation."
  ],
  "law_grounding": [
    "The marriage certificate does not show a name change **after** marriage; nevertheless, because the certificate identifies her as Hughes while all current identity documents are Pritchard, the conservative and administratively …"
  ]
}

Protects: realism and the input/output boundary

5. Content plan

The planner never sees a criterion. It is given the required facts instead: the fact-sheet lines the criteria quote, deduplicated and numbered F01, F02 and so on. Alongside those it gets the task's instructions and deliverables, so it knows the shape of the work, plus the fact sheet, the research and the fields of any form. Criteria resting on law alone contribute nothing here, because the agent is expected to research the law itself.

From that it plans the matter file, organised by the platform's own namespaces: every artefact a real file of this kind holds when the lawyer picks up the work, on a fixed timeline, with client documents keeping their historic dates. Each item names the required facts it establishes, and establishes means what it would mean to a lawyer: directly, or by what the document records. A tenancy start date is established by the agreement's commencement clause, an income by payslips, an event by a contemporaneous email.

Three rules shape the items themselves:

  • each file carries a statement of what a complete and valid instance of its document type contains in this jurisdiction, drawn from the research;
  • one file is one kind of document, as a firm would receive it; a review pass expands anything merged into a specification per document, though a run of the same kind that arrives as one upload stays one file;
  • files are named as they really arrive, from a scanner's digit string to a stale version number, and about one in ten client documents is tangential rather than useful.

A coverage check in code then confirms that every required fact is assigned to at least one item, and sends only the gap back to the planner.

Routing facts rather than criteria keeps the answer out of the file. When an item had to carry whole criteria, a criterion like "PASS if the advice identifies the misrepresentation claim" had nowhere to live except an advice note that stated the conclusion. Now that criterion contributes only the facts it rests on, or nothing at all when it rests on law, and the conclusion is left for the agent to reach.

One planned item
{
  "name": "IMG_20260810_184212.jpg",
  "title": "Photograph of marriage certificate",
  "document_type": "photograph of marriage certificate",
  "date": "2026-08-10",
  "requirements": "A captioned image-extract record identifies the photographed document, image date/source, legible certificate particulars, and any visible issuing/registration particulars. It must not purport to replace the original certificate.",
  "fact_ids": [
    "F02",
    "F05",
    "F17",
    "F18"
  ]
}

Protects: fidelity

6. Content generation

Every planned item is written independently and in parallel by a generator that sees the fact sheet, the research, its own specification and requirements, the facts it must establish, and a list of its sibling items for cross-reference. Those facts are put to it as a test of the finished artefact: a lawyer reading it must be able to ascertain each of them, with the names, dates and figures exactly as written. It is also told what the artefact is not: it records what happened or what someone said, and carries no analysis or conclusions of its own.

Each item is a text rendering of its artefact, as a document-extraction pipeline would produce it, so plans, photographs, signatures and stamps arrive as words describing them. Every verifier is told that this is the rendering format, not a defect. The generator writes in the voice of the artefact's author, carries facts the way that kind of document really would (an enquiry email does not recite a date of birth; a client-care form does), and treats the artefact as frozen at its own date.

Each finished artefact then passes a completeness gate, which reads it against the requirements for its document type and the facts it was asked to establish, counting only those a document of that kind would naturally carry. Its remit is exactly three things: the requirements, the facts, and placeholder text. Every gap it reports must quote its evidence (the requirement clause, the fact line, or the offending passage), and a gap that cannot is discarded. Whatever it finds goes back to the writer, up to five times. An artefact that still fails is left out of the file and the facts it was to carry are placed on other items, so nothing incomplete is handed to the agent. Contacts are not generated at all; they are copied from the plan as records.

files/ · IMG_20260810_184212.jpg
PHONE IMAGE RECORD

Image date: 10 August 2026
Source: Photograph taken by me from the original marriage certificate.

Caption

I took this photograph of our original English-language marriage certificate for the divorce paperwork. The certificate is undamaged. I hold the original in a labelled document folder at 18 Orchard Mews, Lichfield, Staffordshire, WS13 6QJ.

Legible certificate particulars

Marriage solemnized at St Chad’s Church, 25 St Chad’s Road, Lichfield, Staffordshire, WS13 7BY.

Date of marriage: 14 June 2008.

Name of husband: Tobias Henrik Dyer.

Protects: legal validity, coherence, zero-shot readiness

7. Verification

Four verifiers run in dependency order, each with a bounded number of verify-and-fix rounds, and each owns one artefact. There is a single deliberate exception, at the third pass.

The content verifier

Reviews the file as a supervising partner would, with the research tools to hand, and is told to look the law up before calling anything invalid. It checks that:

  • the facts agree with each other and with the fact sheet;
  • nothing is legally impossible or anachronistic;
  • each artefact reads as the real thing, contains nothing dated after itself, and is a complete instance of its type;
  • each required fact is ascertainable from the file, stated outright or inferable from what the documents record;
  • no item is a leak. A leak carries the substantive work the task asks for: analysis, advice, conclusions, a completed form, a checklist of the answer. Notes recording instructions given, information received or steps taken are legitimate, as is any document the plan placed there for the agent to edit.

Each issue is marked blocking or quality, and the file is released once nothing blocking remains, so realism notes that would not change what an agent concluded do not hold up a bundle. Each item is judged against the plan's brief for it, so an imperfection the plan asked for (a notice served in the wrong form, a letter overstating a sum) reads as the scenario. A revision is held to the same standard as a first draft; one that comes back as a refusal or an editorial note is discarded, and the previous version stands.

Every verifier raises issues in one shape, and each issue has to quote the passage that shows the problem. The quote gates deletion: an item is removed only if the quoted passage is really in it, allowing for small copying slips. Where it is not, the deletion is refused, downgraded to a revision and logged. Each round sees what earlier rounds found and what became of it, and whatever is never resolved is written to meta/known-issues.json.

The consistency audit

Extracts every particular across the file and resolves each conflict once, applying the same authoritative value to every item that disagrees. A capable agent will notice a discrepancy and stop to ask which version is right, and a stopped run is a lost evaluation.

The task verifier

Re-reads every criterion against the finished file and the research memo, exactly as the agent will see them, and keeps it, revises it, or drops it where the fact sheet does not support it at all. A fact counts as present if a competent lawyer would establish it from the file, inference included. A form field the file cannot support is expected to be skipped and raised as a question, so gaps like that do not make a task unanswerable.

The fourth outcome is the exception. Where a criterion agrees with the fact sheet but the file contradicts it or is silent, the file is corrected instead. Bending the criterion to fit would lower the bar the fact sheet sets. Numbering is left alone here, so the plan's record of which item carries which criterion stays valid.

The context object check

The Case Context Object is generated from the verified file and checked for factual truth only: an entity invented or missed, a wrong relationship or date is a defect; wording and emphasis are not.

Task verifier · every criterion checked against the finished file
{
  "instructions_answerable": true,
  "verdicts": [
    {
      "id": "001",
      "supported": true,
      "problem": "",
      "action": "keep",
      "content_fixes": [],
      "revised_match_criteria": "",
      "revised_fact_grounding": [],
      "revised_law_grounding": []
    },
    {
      "id": "002",
      "supported": true,
      "problem": "",
      "action": "keep",
      "content_fixes": [],
      "revised_match_criteria": "",
      "revised_fact_grounding": [],
      "revised_law_grounding": []
    }
  ]
    … 33 more, all kept
  ]
}

Protects: auditability

8. Bundle and provenance

The bundle is written to a tree keyed by pipeline version and generating model, so rounds and models can be compared side by side. Alongside the task, the file and the context object it records everything needed to audit a task without re-running it: the narrative and fact sheet, the research memo, the plan, the numbered facts the criteria rest on, and a manifest with the version, the models, a fingerprint of every prompt, the research tool calls, the verification histories and the grounding mix of the surviving criteria.

Every intermediate output of every stage is also kept, numbered in order under debug/, including each draft the checks and the verifiers went on to change. When a criterion is questioned, the line of fact or law it rests on, and the step that produced it, can be found in seconds.

meta/pipeline.json (extract)
{
  "pipeline_version": "0.11.1",
  "model": "gpt-5.6-terra",
  "verifier_model": "gpt-5.6-sol",
  "research": {
    "skill": "SKILL.GB.md",
    "questions": 10,
    "tool_calls": {
      "search_legislation": 7,
      "search_case_law": 6,
      "web_search": 6,
      "read_legislation": 19,
      "read_case_law": 3
    }
  },
  "criteria": 35,
  "criteria_grounding": {
    "fact_only": 8,
    "law_only": 2,
    "both": 25
  },
  "content": {
    "documents": 0,
    "files": 22,
    "precedents": 1,
    "forms": 0,
    "notes": 2,
    "emails": 3,
    "contacts": 11
  },
  "form_deliverables": [
    "d8"
  ],
  "prompt_hashes": {
    "NARRATIVE_PROMPT": "33ba14c4169a",
    "…": "…"
  }
}

4. Principles that run through the design

The stages differ, but six commitments decide most of the design, and each of them is a deliberate choice against a plausible alternative.

1Objectivity

There is no rubric here trying to capture what a lawyer thinks makes legal work good. Attempts to turn the SRA or ABA competency statements into a scoring scheme end up marking style, and two experts will disagree about the mark. This benchmark rests on the part of legal practice that is not a matter of opinion: perfect adherence to the facts of the file, and correct navigation and expression of the legal framework that governs them. A criterion either holds against the file and the law or it does not, and that is baked into the structure of a task rather than left to the judge's discretion. The cost is accepted openly: stylistic qualities a lawyer would genuinely value (the tact of a letter, the elegance of a drafted clause) are necessarily beyond the benchmark's scope, because admitting them would import subjective judgement into the task specification itself.

2Generalisability

The pipeline knows nothing about any particular jurisdiction. The specification is the only variable: name the nature of the task and the jurisdiction it relates to, and the pipeline does the rest. Nothing in the instructions names a country, so extending coverage to a new jurisdiction or a new area of law is a matter of writing another specification, not of writing another benchmark.

3Modularity

The process is decomposed into discrete steps, each with one job to do. The narrative and fact sheet expand a one-line specification into something detailed enough to work from. The legal research establishes the framework that applies to those facts, which is what allows the criteria to be specific rather than generic. The content is planned and generated around the task, so that everything the criteria depend on is present and testable. The verification loops then hold the whole thing to the factual and legal reality of the scenario. The point of working this way is that the task description and the evaluation data come out heavily vetted and realistic: no single step is asked to invent a whole benchmark, and every step's output is checked before the next one builds on it. Veracity, the next principle, fixes the direction of trust between those steps.

4Veracity

The counterpart of Modularity: the steps are not just discrete but ordered, and trust flows one way along them. Each stage generates data, verifies it against everything locked before it, and is then locked itself, immutable to all that follows. Nothing later can weaken a criterion, re-home a fact or bend an earlier artefact to fit, and where later work cannot satisfy what is locked, the run fails loudly rather than shipping a quietly easier benchmark. The pipeline only ratchets forward, so the veracity of a bundle compounds stage by stage instead of eroding at the end.

5Auditability

Every step is logged, for debugging and for analysis. When the harness runs, it keeps a full trace of the evaluation alongside it. Anything that goes wrong in a result can therefore be traced to a root cause, and attributed either to the harness or to the evaluation suite. The intention is that the suite is the stable half, so that in the ordinary case the trace is pointing at something to improve in the harness.

6Reliability

What gets calibrated is the factory, not any individual benchmark. Every firm that vets the alignment of the system gives greater confidence in the whole of it as a diagnostic and evaluation tool, and expert review of one generated benchmark improves every benchmark generated afterwards. Over time that is a path to standing benchmarks that cover a whole jurisdiction, or a whole area of law across jurisdictions: a Consumer Law Bench rather than a folder of one-off tasks.