Ask questions and review proposed actions

Open Case Assistant from the lower-right corner of any matter view. The assistant carries the active view and focused record into the request. If a fact metadata panel is open, that fact becomes the focus; if a claim thread is open, the claim becomes the focus. Words such as “all” and “every” still tell the assistant to search the whole bounded dataset.

Questions and citations

Ask for a summary, comparison, audit, conflict, or missing link. Answers are broken into source-classified parts with readable record labels that link to the exact item. Immutable record IDs remain behind those links for precision without cluttering the interface. Low-confidence answers disclose their confidence, and known limitations appear beside the response.

Good questions include:

• “Which facts support the notice element, and which are merely alleged?”
• “What is the strongest contrary material to our causation theory?”
• “Which authority is adverse, unverified, or missing a pin cite?”
• “Show every date conflict involving the December meeting.”
• “What evidence is not connected to a fact?”

How proposed actions work

The assistant never writes directly. When a prompt asks to change data, each target becomes an individual proposal card showing:

• the exact operation and target;
• old-to-new field values or the proposed relationship;
• the reason and confidence;
• the source records relied on;
• an entity picker when a person match is uncertain.

Choose Accept change to apply one card. A loading circle remains on that card while the server revalidates the target, operation, fields, and selected entity against the stored proposal. Choose Dismiss to reject it. Other cards remain pending.

Entity resolution

For “John Smith,” Lattice can offer, in order:

1. an existing Lattice person;
2. a matching matter/contact-directory record, which creates a linked local person when accepted;
3. a new Lattice person with the requested name.

The AI does not silently choose between ambiguous people. The selected entity must be one of the options stored with that proposal; a client cannot substitute an arbitrary record during acceptance. Accepting a local-person proposal does not create or modify a contact in Clio.

Allowed actions

Case Assistant can propose:

• editing approved metadata fields on facts, claims, elements, authority links, and evidence;
• linking or unlinking a fact and person or place;
• linking or unlinking a fact and element;
• linking or unlinking a broader parent fact and a subordinate fact;
• creating a local person, place, element, or authority record;
• updating the attorney theory.

It cannot use this workflow to delete records, file documents, send messages, create Clio contacts, calendar deadlines, or perform another external side effect. Unsupported fields and unknown source or target IDs are rejected.

Dates and bulk requests

Use an unambiguous ISO date in the prompt when possible: 2026-12-31. A prompt such as “the meeting occurred on 12/31” may require the year; the assistant should ask rather than guess. Bulk work still produces one proposal per target, so an attorney can accept five correct matches and dismiss one false positive.

Example:

Find every fact that refers to the park meeting. Propose date_occurred = 2026-12-31 only when the record clearly describes that same event. List ambiguous references without changing them.

Fact hierarchy proposals

The assistant can propose parent/subordinate relationships between facts. The parent must express a broader event or proposition, and the subordinate fact must express a specific detail, component, or consequence of it. Sharing a date, source, person, or element is not enough.

Use a bounded instruction such as:

Find facts that should be subordinate. A subordinate fact must be a specific detail that naturally refines a broader fact about the same event or proposition. Return one proposal per high-confidence pair, cite both facts, and group ambiguous relationships as gaps.

Each accepted card adds one relationship edge; it does not merge the records or copy metadata between them. The server rechecks that the two facts exist, are different records, are not already linked in that direction, and would not create a cycle. Missing fact text, uncertain direction, or a missing broader parent should produce a limitation or gap rather than a proposal. Broad audits return up to six ranked cards at a time; review the batch and ask the assistant to continue for the next set.

See Organize parent and subordinate facts for the full relationship model and review checklist.

Review rules

• Do not accept a source link merely because the names are similar.
• Verify date precision: an exact date is different from a month, range, or “on or about” date.
• Preserve contested status when the underlying dispute remains.
• Confirm that a subordinate fact truly refines its proposed parent rather than merely following it in time.
• Review authority quotations and pin cites in the source before acceptance.
• Prefer multiple narrow prompts over one instruction that mixes unrelated changes.

Next: copy a real-world prompt.