Section pages
SOLUTIONS · LEGAL & GOVERNANCE
Bring a scattered record into focus.
Connect correspondence, obligations, disputed claims and chronology into a record a reviewer can follow. This proposed application extends the context approach behind PRAXIS to legal and institutional governance work.
These applications are under development. Legal, employment, and governance conclusions require qualified professional review.
Explore a worked example
See what changes when evidence stays connected.
Follow a source into an assessment. Add a later record and see what needs to change. These fictional cases show the reasoning a team needs to preserve.
Counsel · compliance · boards · workplace relations
Was the change requested, accepted, or binding?
A complicated matter often turns on one distinction between a request, an acknowledgment, and an agreed commitment.
Recurring task: update a chronology & issues map as sources change. The analyst checks passages; the reviewer challenges claims; a team lead agrees the evaluation before relying on the workflow.
A legal researcher assembles competing accounts and obligations; qualified counsel checks jurisdiction, privilege and source interpretation before any consequential use.
The assessment only uses records available in the selected view.
2 source records
Selected source · L1
“Delivery is due on 30 June. Schedule changes require written agreement by both parties.”
States the original deadline and a condition for changing it.
Document organization supports professional review; it does not determine legal validity or liability.
Initial · Chronology & issues map
What can we say?
The file contains a June deadline and a requested July extension. Acceptance is not documented in this record.
Ask counsel to check the complete contract, subsequent correspondence, authority, and applicable law.
Can counsel trace each alleged obligation to its source and unresolved qualification?
Fictional conversation / consent-aware teaching example
A confident speaker cannot establish the other party’s acceptance.
Record a candidate commitment and ask for scope, mandate, explicit acceptance and conditions. Stated positions are attributed; inferred interests remain tentative.
INTERACTIVE · 5-DAY DISPUTE, UNFOLDING
A fictional conversation, reviewed step by step.
This is a manually authored illustration, not live extraction or a production integration. Advance the fictional conversation to inspect proposed records and review questions. The scenarios are unmeasured possibilities.
So we're agreed: you own the Q4 launch deck content, I handle design. Lock it in by Thursday?
EXTRACTED PRIMITIVES · 3
ISSUES FLAGGED · 0
No issues yet. Issues surface as contradictions, drift, or escalation vectors appear.
Make each part of the dispute explicit.
Our research framework separates parties, claims, interests, and commitments. In workplace or commercial disputes, these distinctions can help a reviewer see what is documented, what is alleged, and what still needs investigation.
| Analytical concept | In this domain |
|---|---|
| Actor | Employee, manager, HR officer, counsel, director |
| Claim | "The manager retaliated after the complaint." |
| Interest | Job security. Dignity at work. Continued employment. |
| Commitment | Signed settlement, mediated agreement, promotion plan |
| Leverage | Institutional role, timing, access to legal support |
Where the record matters.
HR & workplace
Illustrative scenario · proposed applicationA grievance spans messages, interviews, and review meetings. Which events are documented, and where do accounts disagree?
- Grievance intake and triage
- Manager-team disputes
- Escalation reconstruction
- Commitment tracking across promotion cycles
Legal & dispute resolution
Illustrative scenario · proposed applicationA contract dispute turns on several amendments. Which obligations changed, and what supports each party’s reading?
- Pre-litigation actor and claim mapping
- Dispute-resolution briefs for professional review
- Document review preparation
- Multi-party commitment tracking in complex matters
Commercial
Illustrative scenario · proposed applicationA supplier invokes force majeure. Which clauses, notices, and dates should counsel examine before advising the business?
- Vendor and partner disputes
- Force-majeure and clause-level analysis
- Executive dispute memos
- Deal-breakdown post-mortems
Board & governance
Illustrative scenario · proposed applicationDirectors disagree about an acquisition. What was approved, which conditions applied, and what remains unresolved?
- Board-CEO disagreement mapping
- Governance breach reviews
- Mandate conflict reconstruction
- Whistleblower case synthesis
Try it on one of your cases.
Review what the experimental PRAXIS workspace can do today. For a possible pilot, start with a non-sensitive case and define the professional checks an assessment must pass.
Capsule concepts for mediation and human friction · under development
A useful case record preserves context for the next reviewer. We are developing capsules to bring together the mandate, documented accounts, review methods, and agreed requirements for a draft.
User capsule
The mediator’s mandate and neutrality constraints — what may be said, to whom, and what must stay in the room.
Situation capsule
Parties, documented positions, disputed claims, and commitments with dates and supporting sources.
Tool capsule
Questions for distinguishing stated positions from possible interests, with inferences labeled for review.
Output capsule
Requirements for a session summary or draft agreement, subject to legal and participant review.