Legal AI Editorial Methodology
How Legalai.guide verifies sources, limits legal claims, and keeps Codex, Claude, Grok, and legal AI workflow guidance current.
Our editorial standard is a practical handbook for lawyers and legal teams: explain the task, the material it needs, the result to expect, and how to check it. This is the standard we use to review and improve pages, not a claim that every page already meets it.
Use this rule on a job
Use the following guides to practise checking a claim against its source. Keep missing evidence visible rather than filling it with a plausible answer.
Source Standard
Product claims should link to current official documentation. Implementation details may use approved source repositories. A vendor’s own pages support claims about its product, not an independent judgment that it is better than another. Legal propositions need primary legal sources and an explicit jurisdiction.
We distinguish verified facts from illustrative examples and editorial judgment. Unsupported claims are removed or narrowed; missing authority is never invented.
Freshness Standard
A factual-check date should mean the relevant sources were checked. Editing the prose alone must not change that date. Where availability, price, or behavior depends on a plan or location, the page should explain the limitation.
When a product changes, revise the affected instructions and record the dated change in Updates. Keep release chronology out of the teaching passage.
Legal Safety Standard
A workflow should identify the supplied materials, the proposed output, and the reviewer’s next decision. Verification must be specific: check quotations against the original, inspect omitted context, and leave missing facts unresolved.
Examples should be labeled synthetic or illustrative where applicable. A draft is not approval to use it, and a product feature is not a guarantee of legal accuracy.
Editorial Test
Review the whole page: title, introduction, instructions, prompts, examples, links, and translations should describe the same task. A useful example shows a source, an output, a mistake or limitation, and the reviewer’s correction.
Search queries reveal questions readers need answered. They are not wording to paste into introductions. Use natural professional language and remove repetition. Automated checks can find broken links or missing translations; they cannot establish that the writing meets a practitioner’s needs.
Current Maintenance Loop
Maintenance should change guidance when a reliable source shows a concrete effect on the task. Review the complete affected page and its translations and examples, rather than appending another update paragraph. If evidence is insufficient, keep the limitation explicit and leave the page’s review incomplete.