What the software will not do without you
Authority is not a settings page. These limits are built into the workflow, and they hold in both interfaces.
Software that assists legal work has to be clear about the line between assisting and deciding. These are the six places where the line is enforced in the product rather than written in a policy.
01 Originals stay read-only
Working copies sit beside the originals, never over them. Nothing the product does can rewrite what arrived, which means the record of what the client actually sent survives the review.
02 Privacy preparation comes before any model call
Confidential material is prepared for privacy before it reaches a model. Running a local model does not skip that step. Removing names is not the whole of it either: indirect identifiers, token mappings, logs, and connector behavior all decide whether the preparation actually held.
Preparation is a state a person moves an item through, not a switch: not submitted, pending, approved, or withheld. Holding an item back is not a reserved decision, so any person working an item can withhold it without asking an attorney first. A completed checklist is a review aid, not clearance, and no screen in the workflow treats it as authorization to use the material.
03 A possible conflict is a hold, not a decision
A restricted hold can only be cleared by a licensed attorney, and the software does not make the firm’s conflict determination. Declining the matter is a decision with consequences; it belongs to a person who can be asked about it later.
A hold is a state, not a permission
04 Matter context bounds retrieval
A firm and a matter define the ordinary retrieval context. Cross-matter search happens through the approved conflict index, which is a narrow, authorized exception, not permission to read another client’s documents.
05 Nothing leaves the firm on its own
The software sends no client email and makes no filing, billing commitment, or external record change. Each one needs a person to authorize that specific action, and the authorization is recorded against it.
06 Approval belongs to the version approved
Output can be corrected or rejected. A change starts a new version, and approval of one version does not carry to the next. Otherwise a document can be approved in name and different in substance, which is the failure this rule exists to prevent.
The record of what happened
Every limit above depends on something being written down. The audit view is read-only, and it shows the actor, the outcome, and the time for each recorded action, including the hold clearances, privacy releases, and approvals a person made.
Reading the trail creates nothing and approves nothing. It is the firm’s record of what the software and its people did, not the software’s account of itself: an action that is not in the trail cannot be shown to have happened.
Who can clear what
Two decisions are reserved to a licensed attorney and cannot be delegated to staff: clearing a conflict hold, and authorizing the release of material past the privacy boundary. Staff can prepare, organize, and review within the authority the firm gives them. Withholding an item is not one of the two: a person holding material can refuse to pass it on.
What this page does not claim
Three claims are missing on purpose. Leaving a claim out costs a paragraph; defending one you cannot support costs the reader’s trust.
No time-savings claim. Nothing here rests on a time study, a baseline, or a customer result. The product is intended to assist the work; it has not been shown to shorten it.
No error-prevention claim. No outcome study or validated error rate supports saying the workflow prevents a missed fact, a missed deadline, or an undetected conflict.
No readiness claim. No screen here is a demonstration that the workflow runs end to end, and nothing on this site is a substitute for your own review of it.