The doctrine,
in a window.

Live and historical adjudications across the book, in one log. Filter by line of business, team, wording section, version, or examiner. Open a row to walk its full trace.

The queue is the substrate’s read surface — the same data the API returns, rendered for humans. Examiners use it to spot comparable claims; auditors use it to walk back through valid time; compliance uses it to verify a coverage call was consistent with how the book handled the same facts before.

Click any row in the queue, and the trace walk renders the full causal chain — the claim, the wording bound at the loss date, the guideline evaluated, comparable precedent cited, where the call diverges, approvals received, settlement.

Every step is a sealed event with a clickable identifier. The trace is not a summary or a regenerated narrative; it is the underlying log, rendered. What you read is what is in the substrate — and what a regulator or ombudsman would read too.

For every live claim, the precedent panel surfaces the most relevant prior adjudications — ranked by structural similarity across the typed graph, not by text similarity.

Voyage embeddings give the first pass; the typed-edge graph re-ranks on relationship match — same coverage trigger, same wording version, same injury class. The panel returns sealed claims with their outcomes attached, so the examiner sees not just “we've handled this before” but “here's how it settled, and whether it held up”.

The substrate is honest about where it has thin precedent. The gaps view surfaces claim classes where the book has fewer than three sealed comparables — or where the comparables it does have predate the current wording.

The point of this surface is to flag, not to hide. An examiner adjudicating in a thin-precedent class knows it. A new edge type might be needed. A wording amendment might be queued. It is also where emerging exposure shows up first.