The Fault-Line Radar · a process map

Legal AI reaches a firm through four layers. Here is how it works.

The radar watches all four, then turns each issue into one plain instruction. Here is what goes in, what runs, and what comes out.

The question it answers
What should this firm build, govern, and buy next, given what the AI can do, what the law now requires, and what the firm can actually run?
Inputs · the four effects
Everything that is happening in legal AI lands on a firm through four layers of effect. Two of them are the same for everyone in the market. Two are true only for your firm.
1
Public

Capability

Can the AI actually do this yet?

Measured from real evidence and benchmarks, not vendor claims.

3
Public

Governance

Is the law moving here?

Rulings, ethics opinions, and statutes, weighted by authority, never by volume.

2
Your firm

Enablement

Can we run it?

Your tools, your skills, your data. Only the firm knows this.

4
Your firm

Consequence

Does it pay for us to act?

Whether the economics work under how this firm bills.

Orders 1 and 3 are public. The radar measures them from the real record, deterministically and graded against its own hits and misses.
Orders 2 and 4 are private. The radar will not guess them from public data, because no one can predict one firm's deployment and P&L from the outside. You supply them.
The engine · three parts, one honesty contract
Each part claims only the determinism its object allows. That split is what lets the whole thing be credible and useful at once.
Part A T-rule · graded

Forecast core

The radar itself. Watches public capability and the rules that react to it, fault line by fault line.

  • Scoped to legal-duty stress and rules
  • Deterministic, evidence-cited, replayable
  • Backtested against what actually landed
Part B T-market · traced, not a call

Advisory layer

Adds an enablement view and turns the forecast into build-priority guidance. Never backtested as a prediction.

  • Reads the tool landscape and adoption
  • Renders the agenda this page walks through
  • Hands the economics to Part C
Part C T-model · scenario, not a prediction

Firm model

The AI Profit Paradox and the firm sim. Tests whether this firm's economics let it act.

  • Digital twin, driven by the firm’s signature
  • Confidence-intervaled, human-reviewed
  • Never sold as a forecast of one firm
The seam · two questions per issue
For each issue the radar tracks, the seam answers the two decisions a firm actually faces — separately. Standing up a required control is not the same call as putting AI on the work, so they never get mashed into one answer.
What goes in
From the radar · public
CapabilityCan the AI do it now (0–10)
Rule pressureHas the law moved (0–10)
AdoptionIs the fix already table stakes
Enablement ECan the market supply the tooling (0–10)
Seam & driverHow capturable the work is; why the issue exists
From the firm · private
Pricing modeHourly, fixed fee, or value
RefillHow much freed time the firm resells
EnablementTools, skills, data readiness (0–10)
Two decisions, kept apart

GOVERN · stand up the control?

Compliance calendar
Driven by whether the control is required and the firm can meet it. The AI economics never block a required control — a competence program is not deferred because the billable hour makes AI less profitable.
  • No mandate yet

    Not required or open now. Nothing forces it, nothing rewards it.

  • Build capacity first

    Required or open, but the firm lacks the tools, skills, or data to meet it yet.

  • Stand up now

    Required or open, and the firm is ready. Stand the control up.

Who reads this: the ethics / risk office — what we must stand up, and by when.

DEPLOY · put AI on the work?

Build & buy budget
Driven by how the firm bills and whether the AI can capture the work yet. A rule requiring verification never forces you to scale AI. Only asked where AI does the billable work.
  • Watch

    No deploy case yet — not required or opportunistic.

  • Fix pricing first

    On hourly billing, adopting more AI erodes revenue. No AI spend pays until pricing changes.

  • Defer

    The AI can’t capture this work well enough yet (a tacit seam or a young tool). Wait, don’t force it.

  • Deploy now

    AI captures the work and the economics pass. Put effort and tooling here.

Who reads this: the COO / practice leads — where AI effort and tooling actually pays.
The rule is the same · the deploy call is not
One live issue — verification, the requirement that firms prove their AI work was checked. The law has moved, so both firms must stand the control up. What differs is only the deploy economics.

Hourly-billing firm

Required · ready
Deploy: −$124,000 / lawyer / yr

GOVERN: stand the control up now — required and ready; billing never skips a required verification. DEPLOY: fix pricing first, because the hours AI frees it can’t resell, so more AI is a net loss until the model changes.

Govern: stand up now · Deploy: fix pricing first

Fixed-fee firm

Required · ready
Deploy: +$7,900 / lawyer / yr

GOVERN: stand the control up now, same as the hourly firm — a requirement is a requirement. DEPLOY: deploy now, because the hours AI saves are pure cost taken out.

Govern: stand up now · Deploy: deploy now
The radar predicts nothing about one firm. It reports what is knowable from the record and asks the firm for the rest. The honesty boundary is the feature.