PrenupsAI

Trust is inspectable

How PrenupsAI builds legal content.

One source-bound architecture powers document analysis and public research content. The system is designed to make provenance, gaps, freshness, and editorial judgment visible.

The methodology improves traceability. It does not convert educational software into a court, a formal legal opinion, or a guarantee of outcome.
327unique source URLs
134content fingerprints
0hard failures
0stale packages

The pipeline

Six controls from source to page.

The key design choice is that generated content and manual editorial never silently become one another.

  1. Collect primary and leading authority

    Each source record stores a citation, provenance label, URL, jurisdiction, topic, scoped propositions, search signals, and effective-through date.

    01
  2. Constrain the model

    Document analysis may cite only source IDs in the selected state package. Unknown IDs and unverified document quotes are removed before a report is returned.

    02
  3. Generate comparable facts

    Matrices, lists, checklists, and tools read the same records directly. They do not copy summaries into separate article databases.

    03
  4. Keep editorial separate

    Scenario steps, red-flag framing, FAQs, and examples are authored as a distinct layer and point back to generated evidence views.

    04
  5. Expose gaps and freshness

    No separate record is shown as a research gap, never as proof that no law exists. Source health, due dates, and manual queues stay visible.

    05
  6. Label verification honestly

    Machine verified, editorially verified, and attorney reviewed are separate tiers. Attorney endorsement is optional and tied to an exact package fingerprint.

    06

Generated versus editorial

The boundary used by every collection.

Generated data can refresh automatically after a reviewed package release. Editorial content requires deliberate revision when its framing or scenario assumptions change.

Generated from records

Safe to scale

  • State and topic coverage
  • Source counts and citations
  • Scoped source summaries
  • Checklist evidence prompts
  • Versions, dates, and freshness
  • Visible missing-topic records
Editorial on top

Requires judgment

  • Scenario preparation sequences
  • Red-flag framing
  • State FAQs and examples
  • Comparison leads
  • Legal-change explanations
  • Any personalized conclusion

Audit the output

Follow any page back to evidence.

Every collection below is generated from the same current package registry.

15 entries

50-state comparison matrices

Compare source coverage, citations, and scoped summaries for the same issue across every state.

50 entries

State requirement checklists

Fifteen evidence questions for each state, connected to the exact authority records available.

5 entries

Evidence lists and rankings

Source-count rankings for disclosure, acknowledgment, counsel, timing, and support coverage.

6 entries

Red-flag explainers

Document signals turned into cautious, source-backed investigation guides.

5 entries

Interstate and life-scenario guides

Editorial preparation guides layered over the relevant state evidence matrices.

50 entries

Research releases and legal-source monitoring

Version, freshness, and maintenance history without inventing a legal change when only a source changed.

50 entries

UPAA, UPMAA, and non-uniform frameworks

A source-linked classification of the current statutory or state-specific framework in all 50 packages.

4 entries

Specialized evidence guides

Long-form guides for sunset clauses, estate coordination, business valuation, and digital assets.

4 entries

Interactive and printable tools

Compare states, explore a graphical map, follow a guided quiz, or print a private preparation worksheet.