AI finding
A machine-assisted observation is surfaced as a finding to inspect.
Professional review
Professional review should be a first-class part of AI-assisted legal work.
Keep AI-assisted legal findings separate from professionally reviewed case state, with explicit review decisions and source-linked evidence inside the matter.
The review problem
Human-in-the-loop is easy to say and harder to operationalise. If AI output is copied directly into the working case record, it can become difficult to distinguish what the system suggested from what a legal professional actually checked and adopted.
LegalRAG Pro is designed to preserve that distinction. AI-generated observations and proposed analytical changes can remain separate from professionally approved matter state.
A practical review model
Source check
The reviewer checks the underlying evidence and context.
Professional decision
The reviewer accepts, rejects, qualifies or otherwise deals with the finding through the governed workflow.
Matter state
Only professionally controlled changes become part of the approved analytical position.
Why this matters
Professional duties do not disappear because technology assisted the work. A review workflow should therefore help the solicitor understand what came from AI, what evidence supports it and what professional decision followed.
Test review workflow with practising lawyers
A professional pilot can focus on whether AI findings are easy to inspect, challenge and accept or reject deliberately.