Build and search case context

Case Context turns the matter’s connected records into a searchable working set for drafting and analysis. It is not a second copy of the proof graph. Lattice rebuilds derived artifacts as facts, claims, elements, authority, evidence, and uploaded-document descriptors change.

What Lattice assembles

The context library gives priority to the material lawyers normally need before drafting:

• Attorney theory: the core thesis, themes, disputed issues, concessions, and desired result, kept separate from record-supported facts.
• Proof chains: authority → claim → element → fact → evidence, including missing links and adverse relationships.
• Timeline: dated facts in sequence, undated events, overlapping ranges, and conflicting dates.
• Gaps: missing authority, unsupported elements, facts without evidence, isolated evidence, incomplete verification, and other broken chains.
• Sources: one searchable artifact for each claim, element, fact, authority, item of evidence, and uploaded-document descriptor.

An uploaded document’s name and workflow metadata do not establish what the document says. Document contents must first be extracted or represented in a cited Lattice record.

Write the attorney theory first

The theory is attorney-controlled input. State why the client should prevail, but also record the matters the team must confront. A useful theory is specific enough to test.

For example:

The contemporaneous notices show that Acme knew delivery could not occur by June 30 but continued to promise timely performance. The defense will rely on the weather delay and our client’s July 2 change order; we need to distinguish the earlier supply failure.

Put weaknesses in Concessions / facts to address, not in a private note outside the graph. The detailed report can then test the theory against contrary facts and adverse authority instead of simply echoing it.

Search the working set

Search accepts people, organizations, event descriptions, dates, citations, claims, and gap language. Filter to Theory, Proof chains, Timeline, Gaps, or Sources when the result set is large.

Useful searches include:

• December 31 meeting
• John Smith
• notice and opportunity to cure
• adverse authority
• facts without evidence
• a citation or a Lattice record ID

Each card identifies its source mix and whether it fits in the current prompt preview.

Control the context budget

The budget is a hard relevance constraint, not a target that must be filled. Lattice estimates artifact size and selects material in this order: attorney theory, focused or searched records, critical gaps, proof chains, timeline, and the remaining sources.

Use 3,000–6,000 tokens for a narrow task and 9,000–12,000 for cross-claim analysis. A larger budget costs more and can dilute attention. Omitted-artifact counts are disclosed; omission does not mean the record was deleted.

Use context in drafting

When a drafting component requests case context, the same bounded bundle and exact source references travel with the drafting request. Before relying on a draft:

1. Confirm that the relevant theory, claim, element, and contrary material were included.
2. Open the cited Lattice records and check their underlying source.
3. Treat gaps and inferred propositions as review tasks.
4. Verify quotations, pin cites, procedural posture, and current law before filing.

Next: Generate a detailed case report or use Case Assistant.