Compare evidence across the whole case.
A case does not arrive as one coherent story. Finding one fact is easy compared with lining it up against all of the documents.
ChronoLaw compares that material across the matter.
Ordinary review still works one document at a time.
ChronoLaw lines up an email, testimony, and a loss statement that bear on the same events, rather than summarizing each document on its own.
The result is case intelligence that updates with the document set.
The same dispute, examined several ways.
A vendor dispute over a Q3 performance review and a claimed shortfall.
01
Work from the file you have
Upload the complaint, the MSA, the Q3 email thread, the loss statements, the valuation report. ChronoLaw works from those materials, not from a paraphrase of them.
02
See what sits hundreds of pages apart
The vendor later says no one from the company attended the Q3 performance review. An email thread puts both parties in the room. By deposition, the account of what was agreed has changed again.
03
Separate support from repetition
Several documents repeat that the shortfall was immaterial. That is not the same as independent support. Repetition is not corroboration. Only one independent source actually addresses the loss.
04
Ask a question, then open the source
The claimed Q3 loss does not line up with the quarterly statements. Follow the finding to the spreadsheet, the email, the valuation page, or the MSA clause it may bear on.
Different questions require different kinds of analysis.
01
Contradiction intelligence
Where does the file conflict? The contemporaneous Q3 email and the later deposition.
Corroborating-evidence intelligence
What is independently supported rather than repeated? Not the internal explanation of an immaterial shortfall: the one independent source.
Missing-evidence intelligence
What appears missing or unsupported? A referenced attachment, approval, or amendment is not in the uploaded material. An apparent absence is not proof that something never occurred.
Chronological intelligence
What changed over time? The account of the meeting, from the email through later correspondence to deposition.
Legal intelligence
What may deserve counsel’s review? The MSA language against that factual record.
Financial intelligence
Do the financial records reconcile? The claimed Q3 loss and the quarterly statements.
Before the next consequential step.
01
Before deposition
See where the Q3 account changed, what contemporaneous evidence conflicts with it, and what independently supports each version, before deciding what deserves examination.
Before mediation
Reconcile the claimed shortfall against the quarterly statements while there is still time to investigate the discrepancy.
Before motions or trial
Inspect the evidence tied to the disputed meeting, the MSA language, and the loss figure before relying on those facts in a filing or at hearing.
When new evidence arrives
Add the new material and regenerate the relevant intelligence so the expanded file is incorporated. The same applies when taking over a matter: investigate the existing file rather than inheriting only a prior summary. ChronoLaw updates with new information at the click of a button.
Open the underlying source behind a finding.
Every fact is linked directly to its source so you can immediately verify it in the source document. This allows judgment to stay with counsel instead of with AI.
- 01No customer data used to train AI models
- HIPAA-compliant workflows. A BAA is available to all users, including trial users.
- Encryption in transit and at rest
- US-based infrastructure
- Privilege-aware controls for confidential legal matters
$300
Run a closed matter you already know.
Run a matter whose facts, contradictions, financial issues, gaps, and chronology you already know, and compare what it surfaces with your own work.
Try it on a case