Custody and access
Original, hash, version, access class and snapshot before analysis.
Synthetic case · unrelated to any real matter
How it works
A complex record, a structured second review.
The demonstrator shows how an AI layer can ask questions and preserve warnings without replacing the judgment of the responsible professional.
Six checks + four cross-cutting controls
From demonstrator to reproducible review.
The four additions are not guilt tests. They surround the stable six so source loss, hindsight, confirmation bias and untraceable decision-making are harder to hide.
SourceAuthorityPerimeterContradictionConsequenceReversibility
Time and context closure
Separate T0 knowledge from later evidence and retain material context.
Independent challenge
Test the strongest lawful/contrary explanation and allow a false positive to close.
Decision, memory and reopen
Competent person, reasons, dissent, review date and explicit reopen event.
Five human outcomes: verify further · narrow · proceed with reasons/safeguards · escalate/route · close/reconcile. None is preselected.
Second Pair of EyesAI-assisted second review
SourceOriginal sources are identified, but a native copy of one annex is still missing.Reconcile
Check version, date, signature and the relationship between deed, registry extract, cadastral certificate and easement annex.
Check version, date, signature and the relationship between deed, registry extract, cadastral certificate and easement annex.AuthorityThe legal bridge enabling a joint sale without the co-owner’s consent is not yet visible.Material inconsistency
The review does not conclude that the sale is invalid. It requires the title, order, mandate or consent allowing the process to reach the 40% outside the insolvency estate.
PerimeterAnnexes and easements sit inside the economic transaction, but ownership is not unambiguously delimited.Verify further
Distinguish estate asset, third-party asset, common area, use right, easement and accessory element before defining the object of sale.
ContradictionLand Registry and Cadastre disagree on area and boundaries; the commercial report uses a third description.Material inconsistency
The difference may have a lawful explanation. It should be recorded before presenting the asset as one legally available unit.
ConsequenceThe transaction may shift risk to the third party, buyer, estate and the professional who authorises or reports.Relevant risk
Identify who receives the price, who loses use or title, which protection the buyer receives and which contingency remains in the estate.
ReversibilityA completed sale to a third party may be costly and materially difficult to unwind.High irreversibility risk
The less effective a later remedy would be, the stronger the need for prior reconciliation, reasons and preservation of the warning.
AI asks questions. The decision remains human.
No option is preselected.
The tool preserves the warning; the competent person decides what to do and why.
The tool preserves the warning; the competent person decides what to do and why.
Decision trail
- Review opened: six dimensions checked; no automated decision exists.
✓ An alert can also be resolved when the record is reconciled.
Neutral closure example.
A supplementary deed predating the proposal is produced, registered and signed by the third party. It expressly authorises the joint sale and defines allocation of the price. The authority alert changes to “issue reconciled”. The tool does not accuse: it also records why a concern is no longer supported.
Shared reading order
A repeatable structure
The same sequence allows a decision to be reviewed without confusing an alert with a legal conclusion.