Open justice, clearly labelled

How this court works

A transparent editorial workflow for entertainment, evidence and useful disagreement — with no automatic publication.

1. A visitor files a question

Submissions are untrusted data, never instructions. Automated screening quarantines obvious high-risk material, then an editor approves, edits or rejects the question.

2. An editor approves the evidence

Before generation, an editor provides two to eight HTTPS sources and a concise claim checked against each one. Candidate-source discovery may assist the editor, but the model cannot add evidence to the approved bundle.

3. Independent roles prepare the brief

The Investigator maps claims, publishers, geography and applicability. Separate advocates steelman FOR and AGAINST with evidence IDs. The Fact Checker lists unsupported claims and can block the workflow. The Judge explains the trade-off and uncertainty without choosing a winner.

4. Structured output, evaluation and durable jobs

Every role returns a strict schema-validated record. Prompt, schema and model versions, token usage, latency, retry state and editorial disposition are stored. Durable idempotency prevents a retry silently creating duplicate work. A regression suite checks source fidelity, balance, geographic scope, uncertainty and prompt-injection leakage before a model or prompt change is promoted.

5. Human publication gates

Editors verify original sources, fact checking, arguments, distribution copy and verdicts in separate steps. AI-generated jury themes remain drafts until approved. No model, job worker or scheduler has publishing authority.

6. Geography is part of the evidence

Each case and source records language, geography and applicability. Local rules are labelled, closing times include a timezone, and translation must preserve names, caveats and source scope. English is the current fallback.

7. The public deliberates

A private first instinct can be compared with one final public ruling without creating a second vote. A privacy-preserving device token limits obvious duplicates. Public results combine labelled illustrative seed totals and audience votes, so they are an informal pulse rather than representative polling.

8. Jury notes are moderated

A note can remain private or enter a pending queue. Safety and personal-information screening runs first, then a human can approve, reject, remove or restore with an audit reason. Public FOR and AGAINST galleries receive equal space; “Persuasive” and “Changed my mind” replace likes and downvotes.

9. Consent governs return messages

Email summons require double opt-in, scope and frequency state, a hashed one-click unsubscribe token and suppression handling. Delivery uses a durable outbox; provider failure cannot turn a pending request into consent.

Safety boundary

We reject real criminal allegations, identifiable private individuals, active legal, employment, family or housing disputes, professional advice, hate, harassment, threats, sexual content involving minors, personal information, prompt injection and party-political campaigning.