# CLAUDE.md — Active Blue Family Law Platform > **Handoff document for Claude Code.** This is the single source of truth for the > project: what it is, how it's architected, the decisions already made, what's been > built, and what to build next. Read this fully before writing code. Companion > design docs (`00`–`11`) live in the design package; this file is the operational > brief that ties them together. --- ## 1. What we're building (and the one rule that governs everything) A **case-management platform for a Florida family-law practice** in **Miami-Dade (11th Judicial Circuit)**, built on **Odoo 18 Community**. A staff member with **little legal knowledge** enters case data through guided intake; the software **assembles the case** — manages it, attaches verified case law, tracks statutory/procedural requirements and evidence, and flags what's needed for success — and routes a **finished, draft case package to a licensed attorney who reads it, verifies it, and signs it.** The attorney owns the output. **THE GOVERNING RULE — non-negotiable, enforced in code, not policy:** > The software **builds, verifies, organizes, and flags.** A **licensed attorney > judges, decides, and signs.** Nothing reaches a client, a clerk, or a courtroom > without attorney approval. The AI is the paralegal who never sleeps — **it is not > the lawyer.** **Claude's specific role = the quality-elevation layer.** Claude exists to produce *high-quality, verified, fully-assembled* work product — drafted documents, extracted facts, completeness-checked files, and **verified** case-law research — and **move it UP to the licensed attorney for sign-off**. The point of using a frontier model is the quality of what gets elevated: the attorney receives something strong enough to approve with minor edits, fast. Claude *intervenes* by supplying verified case law and the available next steps/avenues — **not** by deciding strategy or rendering the legal opinion. The intervention makes the attorney faster; it never replaces them. This exists because the platform must **not** practice law. Two structural gates enforce it everywhere: 1. **The review gate** — AI-produced work is born in a draft state; only a licensed attorney (group) can approve it; nothing can be filed/sent/signed unapproved. 2. **The citation gate** — every case-law citation is born `unverified` and must pass verification (exists / on-point / good-law) against a real database before it can enter a filing. (Lawyers have been sanctioned for AI-hallucinated cites; this makes that mechanically impossible.) **The product goal is a high attorney-approval rate achieved by producing genuinely good, complete, citation-verified work — NOT by making review shallow.** The win condition is "approve with minor edits, fast," like a senior partner redlining a strong associate draft. **How the software improves over time — the SAFE loop (read this carefully).** The near-term improvement mechanism is **prompt and few-shot-example refinement plus the regression eval suite** — NOT model fine-tuning on live matters. Family-law work product is full of **confidential, privileged client data** (Bar Rule 4-1.6); feeding attorney-corrected drafts into model training risks leaking one client's information into another client's matter, which is far worse than any bad draft. Therefore: - The default loop is: attorney edits → those edits inform **curated, hand-written exemplars and prompt tweaks** + new regression test cases → output improves. No client data enters any training process by default. - **Fine-tuning is a FUTURE, GATED capability**, not part of this build, and only ever on a **de-identified, attorney-approved, consented** corpus held separately that **never auto-ingests live matters**. (See doc 09 §10 cautions.) The attorney is the quality bar and the source of curated examples — never an unwitting training-data faucet, and never a bottleneck to engineer around. --- ## 2. Capabilities the platform must deliver Derived backward from the outcome: **a non-lawyer enters facts → a complete, verified, attorney-signable case package comes out, fast enough that the attorney's review is confirmatory, not corrective.** Every capability earns its place by serving that outcome. **Grouped by RISK, not feature area** — the tier tells you what's safe to build now vs. what needs attorney-validated legal content first. ### Tier 1 — The spine (capture & manage) — *safe to build now; data + deterministic rules* 1. **Guided intake & fact capture** — the adaptive questionnaire (triage routes by case type; branches collect exactly the facts each matter needs, in plain language). **Highest-leverage capability in the system** — everything downstream is only as good as the facts captured here; bad capture is the #1 cause of a draft getting sent back. 2. **Case management & system of record** — matter, parties, children, issues, **proceedings** (each modification/enforcement is a child `familylaw.proceeding` under the case — see §4), lifecycle state, team. The Odoo spine; the container everything fills. 3. **Automated conflict-of-interest screening** — when intake captures the opposing party, the system **searches every party across every matter** and surfaces potential conflicts (opposing party was a past client; is adverse to a current client) **for the attorney to clear**. A human ticking a checkbox across hundreds of matters *will* miss structural conflicts; an undetected conflict can disqualify the firm and void work (Bar Rules 4-1.7/4-1.9). The software does the search a human can't do reliably; the **attorney still decides** (the Step 1 `conflict_check_cleared` gate stays). Belongs in Step 2 (needs the party model). 3. **Document & evidence repository** — every document on the matter, versioned, checksummed, with legal metadata (type, privilege, retention). The case file as one organized source of truth. 4. **Deadline & calendar engine** — statutory/procedural clocks (answer, disclosure, discovery, objection windows) computed deterministically, surfaced on a layered, filterable calendar. Pure rules + date math; a real differentiator (a missed family-law deadline is malpractice). ### Tier 2 — The assembly (build the case) — *safe to build now; assembly + deterministic scoring* 5. **Document drafting** — first drafts of pleadings/motions/forms from captured facts, with placeholders for unknowns, born as drafts for attorney review. Where the non-lawyer's facts become legal documents. 6. **Procedural avenue mapping + decision graph** — given case type + what changed, surface the *available* procedural paths with their required elements and deadlines, rendered as a **branching decision graph** the attorney can compare at a glance. The menu, **not** the decision. Suggests; never strategizes. **Each path node shows a STRENGTH-OF-SUPPORT comparison — NOT a success percentage:** - procedural requirements (forms, elements, proof needed); - **strength factors present / missing**, drawn factually from the case data (e.g. "income change exceeds 15% threshold ✓; underemployment evidence not gathered ✗; financial affidavit on file ✓"); - effort + timeline (deterministic: deadlines, steps, typical duration); - key risks / unknowns ("outcome depends on whether the court imputes income — a judgment call for the attorney"); - what would strengthen the path (the gaps to close). **This deliberately does NOT output a win probability.** A "% chance of success" is fabricated precision (no honest dataset of comparable sealed/settled Miami-Dade outcomes exists), it is functionally the legal *opinion* only a licensed attorney may give, it becomes Bar-complaint/malpractice evidence if the case loses, and it anchors the attorney into shallow review. The graph compares **which path the facts on hand best support**; the attorney converts that into a probability using their own judgment and license. (See EXCLUDED, below.) 7. **Requirements & completeness scoring** — the readiness engine: score the file against what a complete case of that type/stage needs (forms, proven facts, evidentiary foundations, met deadlines) and surface gaps **before** the attorney sees it. **The capability that most directly drives approval rate** — it catches the omissions that cause rejections. (Feeds the "strength factors" in capability 6.) ### Tier 3 — The legal support (high-risk, high-value core) — *NEEDS attorney-validated legal content before shipping* 8. **Case-law research & verified citations** — propose authority, draft argument, and **verify every citation against a real reporter (CourtListener) before it can enter a filing**; unverified = mechanically blocked. Most valuable *and* most dangerous — the part that makes the software feel like it knows law, and the part that gets people sanctioned if built wrong. 9. **Prior-judgment interpretation** — extract structured facts from an existing order, summarize it plainly, and **flag** legal-interpretation questions **without ruling** on them. Central to the modification/enforcement work this practice focuses on. ### Tier 4 — The output & the loop (close it safely) — *the machinery that makes all the above defensible* 10. **Attorney review & approval workflow** — the GATE made into a workflow: assembled package → attorney reads, verifies, edits, signs → only then does anything move. **Non-negotiable; the capability that makes every other one safe.** 11. **E-signature & filing preparation** — client-facing docs via DocuSeal; court filings prepared for `/s/` + Portal upload (prepare-and-upload). The last mile from approved draft to going out. 12. **Audit trail** — every fact, AI action, citation verification status, and approval reconstructable. Protects the attorney and the practice when anyone asks "who did what, and was it checked." 13. **Communications drafting** — plain-language, attorney-reviewed client updates; never auto-sends. Keeps clients informed without the attorney writing every email. 14. **Nonlawyer supervision & access control** — the operator is a *low-legal-knowledge staffer handling privileged client data*, which triggers the attorney's duty to supervise nonlawyer assistants (Bar Rule 4-5.3). So: **matter-scoped access** (staff see only their assigned matters, not the whole client base), a nonlawyer- conduct acknowledgment, and the hard principle that **staff capture and assemble but never communicate legal positions to a client** (extends "never advises" from the AI to the human operator). This is a confidentiality + ethics requirement, not a nicety. 15. **Data retention & destruction** — Florida imposes file-retention obligations, and "keep everything forever in an audit log" is itself a liability (more data = more breach surface; some data shouldn't be kept indefinitely). So: **attorney-configured retention classes**, a defined **closed-matter lifecycle** (retain → eligible for destruction → destroyed, with the action logged), and **client-file return at matter close**. The audit trail (12) records *that* destruction happened without retaining the destroyed content. ### Deliberately EXCLUDED (these cross from *assist* into *judge* → UPL/liability) - **Outcome / success-percentage prediction** — NO "% chance of winning" on any path, graph, or report. There is no honest dataset of comparable Miami-Dade family-law outcomes (cases are sealed, settlements private, "success" isn't binary), so any percentage is **fabricated precision**; it is functionally the legal *opinion* only a licensed attorney may give; it becomes evidence if a case loses; and it anchors the attorney into shallow review. **What IS allowed (capability 6): a strength-of-support decision graph** that compares which path the *facts on hand* best support — present/ missing factors, requirements, effort, risks — leaving the probability judgment to the attorney. The distinction is load-bearing: "72% likely to win" = excluded; "threshold met, 4 of 5 supporting elements documented" = allowed. - **Evidence admissibility rulings** — admissibility is a contextual legal ruling. The software surfaces an evidence **completeness checklist** ("missing the foundation for exhibit C"); it does **not** rule the exhibit admissible. **Build order implication:** Tiers 1, 2, and 4 are safe to build now (no legal judgment — data, assembly, deterministic rules, safety machinery). **Tier 3 is gated behind attorney validation of the underlying legal logic** (the requirements/ elicitation content is the artifact to put in front of a Florida attorney). Build Tiers 1/2/4 first and gate Tier 3 → genuinely useful product quickly, on the right side of the line. This maps onto §7: capabilities 1–7 and 10–15 ride Steps 1–14 (conflict screening 3 → Step 2; supervision/access 14 → Steps 2–3; retention 15 → Step 12); capabilities 8–9 are the Tier-3 pieces (Steps 6, 7, 9) the attorney questionnaire validates. --- ## 3. Architecture (decided) - **Odoo 18 Community is the spine:** system of record, workflow/state machines, RBAC, audit (`mail.thread`), deadlines (`ir.cron` + `base.automation`), documents, calendar, UI. ~70% of needs are Odoo plumbing — **do not rebuild from scratch.** - **AI = Odoo's own HTTPS call to the Claude API** at `api.anthropic.com/v1/messages`. - **No Odoo "AI" feature is used** — Odoo Community has none; this is a plain outbound HTTP call from our module. - API key in `ir.config_parameter` (encrypted, attorney-group readable only). - Model **pinned in config** (`familylaw.model`), recorded per task for audit. - Calls run **async via `queue_job`** (OCA) so they never block the web worker. - **Provider is pluggable.** Local **Ollama** is a *future* routing option, not wired now. Build `_route_model()` so flipping high-confidentiality work to local is a **config change, not a redesign**. - **Trust/billing reconciliation NEVER reaches any model** — the routing layer raises before any such call. (IOTA, Bar Rule 5-1.1 — human-only.) - **One external service:** an optional **FastAPI orchestrator** for the multi-step **research loop** (search → propose citations → verify each → synthesize). Mirrors the owner's existing `odoo-ai` pattern. Single-shot AI tasks (drafting, summaries, extraction) run **from Odoo directly**; only the agentic research chain goes external. Running even that as sequenced `queue_job` steps inside Odoo is an acceptable alternative — complexity-vs-consolidation call, not correctness. - **Satellites:** - **DocuSeal** — self-hosted e-signature for *client-facing* docs (court filings use the `/s/` convention via the FL E-Filing Portal, **NOT** DocuSeal). **Two material caveats (do not bury these):** (1) the **API/embedding needed for the Odoo integration requires DocuSeal *Pro* (~$200/yr / ~$20-per-user-mo)** — the free tier does core signing but not the programmatic integration; (2) the **DocuSeal signing host must be internet-facing**, unlike the rest of the NetBird-internal, privacy-first stack — so it must be **isolated and hardened** (its Postgres not exposed, audit trail backed up). For a HIPAA-adjacent operator these are design facts, not footnotes. - **MinIO or Synology NAS** — file archive behind `ir.attachment`. - **CourtListener** — citation verification. **It is a single point of failure for the citation gate (capability 8 — the thing that prevents sanctions), so:** (1) **fail CLOSED** — if CourtListener is down, rate-limited, or has no record for a cite, the citation **stays `unverified` and remains blocked**; the system NEVER "assumes good" or waves anything through on a verification failure; (2) define at least **one fallback source** (e.g. Google Scholar / a secondary API) before relying solely on it; (3) **confirm Florida appellate (DCA + Supreme Court) coverage is adequate BEFORE building on it** — verify the tool actually works for FL family-law authority, don't assume. - **AI cost & latency (model this from day one):** a fully-assembled matter can mean *many* calls (drafting + research + per-citation verification), so a research loop can run minutes and cost real money per case. Set a **per-task token ceiling**, and **record token cost + latency on each `ai.task`** so the economics are measurable and capped, not discovered later. Budget the cost-per-assembled-case explicitly. - **Court e-filing reality:** the FL Courts E-Filing Portal has **no public push API**. The model is **prepare-and-upload**: software prepares, attorney signs `/s/`, a human uploads through the Portal, confirmation recorded back in Odoo. ### Tech/environment notes - **Odoo 18 view syntax:** use `` (NOT `` — removed in 18). `attrs=` and `states=` are **removed**; use direct attributes (`invisible="..."`, `readonly="..."`, `required="..."`). Chatter: explicit `oe_chatter` div used for cross-release safety (v18 also supports the `` shorthand). - Owner runs Odoo 18 in production (Docker/Proxmox stack, Postgres, Traefik, NetBird). The orchestrator/Ollama/GPU box already exist. - **Verify volatile legal facts at build time.** Florida renumbers forms and amends rules/statutes regularly (e.g., the 2023 alimony overhaul removed permanent alimony; Rule 12.410 subpoena amendment effective Oct 1 2025). Never bake a specific statute version into code as if permanent; keep "verify current rule" in the flow. --- ## 4. Decisions locked (apply these — do not re-litigate) | Decision | **Choice** | Consequence for the build | |---|---|---| | **Intake front door** | **Intake creates a draft case directly** | The intake questionnaire fills a `familylaw.case` that starts in `intake` state. No separate lead/convert step. | | **Case creation strictness** | **Conditional: strict for standard intake, FAST-PATH for emergencies** | Standard intake = **strict** (require matter name, client, case type, county/court + triage essentials before the draft case commits — the friction is fine and keeps data clean). **Emergency intake = fast-path:** if the urgency screen trips (child withheld / removal threat / violence), creation requires only the bare minimum to act (who, which child, what's happening) and **defers** the rest. Rationale: in a genuine emergency the procedural clock and the child's safety beat data completeness; a bare "strict" rule would block opening the matter exactly when speed matters most. The urgency screen runs first, so it gates which creation path applies. | | **Modification: how Case A is handled** | **One continuous case; each new proceeding is a child `familylaw.proceeding`** | A modification/enforcement **reopens the same `familylaw.case`** (continuity, full history in one place) **BUT** spawns a new **`familylaw.proceeding`** record under it. **Deadlines, documents, and proceeding-state attach to the PROCEEDING, not the case.** This resolves the flaw in a bare "reopen": without it, the deadline engine can't tell the 2024 dissolution's disclosure clock from a 2027 modification's, and documents/audit from distinct legal proceedings pile together. The case is the client-matter spine; the proceeding is the unit of legal action. (Reconciles with doc 03's parent/child structure — same idea, named `proceeding`.) | | **"Interpret the prior judgment"** | **Extraction + plain summary + legal interpretation (flagged, not concluded)** | The AI extracts structured facts, writes a plain-language summary, **and** may surface legal interpretation of provisions — but interpretation is **flagged for the attorney, never stated as a conclusion/ruling.** Born as draft; attorney decides. | Other standing choices from design: **native Odoo models** for the questionnaire (NOT the Survey app) — answers must land as typed case data the workflow can use, with no survey→case mapping layer. Markdown for docs; module version-controlled in Gitea by the owner. --- ## 5. The build method — VERIFIABLE STEPS (follow strictly) Build in small, independently verifiable slices. **Do not start step N+1 until step N's tests are green and its walkthrough passes.** Every step delivers, in order: 1. **Installable code** — installs/upgrades cleanly (`-u activeblue_familylaw`). 2. **A walkthrough** — a UI click-path that shows the new behaviour end to end. 3. **Tagged unit tests** — under `tests/`, tagged `familylaw_step`, proving the step's guarantees (especially the gates). 4. **Done-when** — explicit pass condition: green tests + clean walkthrough → ship, then advance. ### Test harness - Tests subclass `TransactionCase` (savepoint rollback; DB stays clean). - Tag: `@tagged("post_install", "-at_install", "familylaw", "familylaw_step")`. - Group-gated actions: `new_test_user(..., groups="base.group_user,activeblue_familylaw.group_familylaw_attorney")`; call with `.with_user(attorney)` / `.with_user(paralegal)`. - **External APIs are ALWAYS mocked** (`unittest.mock.patch`) — Claude, DocuSeal, CourtListener. Tests must never hit the network. Assert on what got written to Odoo (e.g. "document born `ai_draft`", "citation born `unverified`"). - **Date math tested with fixed dates**, never `today()`, for determinism. Run all: `odoo -d -i activeblue_familylaw --test-enable --stop-after-init` Run one step: `odoo -d -u activeblue_familylaw --test-enable --test-tags familylaw_step1 --stop-after-init` --- ## 6. What's already built — STEP 1 ✅ (delivered, validated) Module: `activeblue_familylaw` (in the Step 1 zip; layout below). **`familylaw.case`** — the matter spine: - Identity: `name`, `client_id` (res.partner), `case_type` (selection: dissolution w/ & w/o children, paternity, support/parenting/alimony modification, enforcement, DV injunction, other). - Team: `attorney_id`, `paralegal_id` (res.users). - **`representation`** (attorney / pro_se) — drives the Step 8 subpoena branch. - **`conflict_check_cleared`** (attorney-only gate, readonly, tracked). - **`state`** lifecycle: `intake → engaged → disclosure → discovery → mediation → hearing → closed`, with **guarded transitions** (each checks current state, rejects illegal jumps) and **attorney-only** actions (`action_mark_conflict_cleared`, `action_close`, `action_reopen`) enforced in **Python AND** via `groups=` on buttons. - `mail.thread` / `mail.activity.mixin` — every transition + clearance posts to the chatter (the audit trail). **Security:** groups `group_familylaw_user` (Staff) and `group_familylaw_attorney` (Attorney, implies Staff implies internal). Access rules: staff can't delete; attorney can. **Views:** list (``), form (statusbar + transition buttons + chatter), search (filters: My Cases, Open, Awaiting Conflict Clearance; group-by: stage/attorney/type). **Menu:** Family Law → Cases (+ Configuration placeholder). **Tests (`tests/test_case_lifecycle.py`, tag `familylaw_step1`):** 10 tests — initial state, conflict-clearance gate (engage blocked until cleared; only attorney clears), illegal-transition rejection, full forward path, attorney-only close/reopen, audit logging. Statically validated: Python compiles, XML well-formed, manifest is a dict, every button maps to a method, every view field exists on the model, zero Odoo-18-forbidden constructs. ### Module layout ``` activeblue_familylaw/ __init__.py __manifest__.py # depends: base, mail models/ __init__.py familylaw_case.py # the spine + state machine + gates security/ familylaw_security.xml # groups + module category ir.model.access.csv # staff (no unlink) / attorney (full) views/ familylaw_case_views.xml # list, form, search, action familylaw_menus.xml # app menu tests/ __init__.py test_case_lifecycle.py # familylaw_step1 ``` --- ## 7. The step sequence (roadmap) | Step | Slice | Key models / files | Proves (tests) | Doc | |---|---|---|---|---| | **1 ✅** | Case spine + lifecycle + attorney gates | `familylaw.case`, security, views | transitions, conflict gate, attorney-only, audit | 02,03 | | **2 → NEXT** | **Parties, children, issues + `proceeding` + conflict screening + `case_number` + search + intake questionnaire** | `familylaw.party`, `.child`, `.issue`, **`familylaw.proceeding`**; indexed `case_number`; conflict-search method; intake wizard | relations, DOB constraints, **find by party/child/case number**, **conflict search surfaces a past-client opposing party**, questionnaire creates draft case (strict) / emergency fast-path, urgency flag raised, "good case?" captured not answered | 02,03 | | 3 | **Documents + the review gate** | `familylaw.document` (`ai_draft→attorney_review→approved`), attached to a **proceeding** | only attorney approves; can't file/send unapproved (GATE 1) | 03,04 | | 4 | Deadline engine | `familylaw.deadline` (**FK to `proceeding`, not case**) + `base.automation` + `ir.cron` + `calendar.event` mirror | 20/45/30-day math, weekend roll, overdue, **deadlines isolated per proceeding** | 02,11 | | 5 | Mandatory disclosure (Rule 12.285) | `disclosure.item`, `financial.affidavit`, `fin.line` (per proceeding) | 12.902(b) vs (c) by income, 45-day due, can't-waive | 02,11 | | 6 | **Claude client + `ai.task` ledger** (single-shot) | `familylaw.ai.client`, `ai.task` (**logs model + token cost + latency**), drafting agent, `queue_job` | (mocked) doc born `ai_draft`, task logged w/ cost, cites born `unverified` | 04,09 | | 7 | **Citation ledger + filing gate** + research loop | `familylaw.citation`, `action_request_filing`, FastAPI orchestrator; **fail-closed verification + fallback source** | filing blocked on any unverified cite (GATE 2); verification failure keeps cite blocked | 06 | | 8 | **Discovery + subpoena** (12.351 gate + pro-se/attorney branch) | `discovery.request`, objection-window gate | objection-window hard gate, same-day Notice of Issuance, clerk-vs-attorney routing | 11 A.6,C | | 9 | **Child-support modification** workflow (end to end) | wires 1–8 for `support_modification`; **new `proceeding` under the reopened case** | 15%/$50 threshold, 20-day answer, DOR-case flag, retroactivity note, **prior-judgment extraction+summary+flagged interpretation** | 11 B.2 | | 10 | **Emergency** workflow (12.941 pick-up/removal) | emergency motion records + required-attachment checks; **uses the intake fast-path** | have-order-vs-not fork; missing-attachment block; fast-path opens matter on minimum facts | 11 B.1 | | 11 | DocuSeal e-signature | `action_send_for_signature`, webhook controller (**Pro tier; isolated internet-facing host**) | (mocked) only `approved` sends; webhook → `signed` | 05 | | 12 | File archive + calendar layers + **retention lifecycle** | `ir.attachment` + `familylaw.archive` metadata; calendar categories; retention classes + closed-matter destruction | SHA-256 checksum, **retention class drives destruction-eligibility**, client-file-return at close, **per-layer filter toggles** | new | | 13 | Miami-Dade auto-seed (AO 14-13) | Status Quo Order, parenting-course + mediation obligations on case open | obligations seed on open; course-before-judgment guard | 11 D | | 14 | Comms agent + AI-assisted billing flag + hardening + **matter-scoped access** | `comms` drafts, `time.entry.ai_assisted`, record rules scoping staff to assigned matters, encryption/backup | (mocked) comms never auto-sends; AI ratio reportable; **staff can't see unassigned matters** | 04,08 | **Intake questionnaire** (native models; intake-creates-draft-case; **conditional strictness — strict for standard, fast-path for emergencies**) is the high-leverage elicitation layer. It belongs with **Step 2** (it needs the party/child fields) and is built **triage section + ONE case-type branch (child-support modification first)**, then more branches added incrementally. The triage **urgency screen runs FIRST** and selects strict vs. fast-path creation. It captures facts only — it **never answers** "do I have a good case?" (logs that as a question for the attorney). **MVP to run a solo practice:** Steps 1–6 + 8 + 11, then add 7. Steps 9/10 are the headline workflows; 12–14 round it out. --- ## 8. STEP 2 — the immediate task (build this next) **Goal:** the related records that make a matter real, the **proceeding** layer that keeps modifications/enforcements cleanly separated, **automated conflict screening**, search the way a practice actually searches (by people + court case number), and the intake questionnaire front door (conditional strict / emergency fast-path). **Build:** 1. **`familylaw.party`** — a party to the matter (`res.partner` + role: client / opposing party / opposing counsel / other). Opposing-party capture feeds conflict screening (#6). 2. **`familylaw.child`** — a minor child (name, DOB **with validation: reject future or implausible dates**, link to case); searchable. 3. **`familylaw.issue`** — a contested issue (time-sharing, support, equitable distribution, alimony, etc.) — the spine for later requirements scoring. 4. **`familylaw.proceeding`** — **the unit of legal action under a case.** A case can have many proceedings over time (original dissolution, later modification, later enforcement). Fields: `case_id` (FK), `proceeding_type`, `state` (its own lifecycle), open/close dates. **From here on, deadlines and documents attach to a proceeding, not directly to the case** (Steps 3–5 build on this). On case creation, open an initial proceeding for the originating matter. 5. **`case_number`** on `familylaw.case` — court-assigned (e.g. 2024-DR-001234), **indexed + searchable**. (A proceeding may also carry its own number if the court assigns one.) 6. **Automated conflict screening** — a method that, given the captured opposing party, **searches `familylaw.party` across ALL cases** and returns potential conflicts (opposing party matches a past/current client; or is already an opposing party elsewhere). Surface the hits **on the case for the attorney to clear** — it does **not** auto-clear or auto-block; the Step 1 `conflict_check_cleared` attorney gate remains the decision point. (Name-match can be fuzzy; flag for human review, never auto-resolve.) 7. **Search-by-person / by-number:** extend case search so a matter is findable by party name, child name, and `case_number` — not just title/client. 8. **Intake questionnaire (native; creates draft case; conditional strictness):** a guided multi-step flow that (a) runs **triage FIRST** (caller + contact, opposing party, minor children y/n, county/court, existing case/order, **urgency screen: child withheld / removal threat / violence**), (b) **branches on urgency**: *standard* → strict (require name, client, case type, county + triage essentials before commit); *emergency* → **fast-path** (commit on minimum facts: who, which child, what's happening; defer the rest), (c) branches into the **child-support modification** question set, and (d) on completion **creates a draft `familylaw.case` in `intake` state** (and its initial proceeding). Runs conflict screening (#6) as part of completion. Collects facts only. **Tests (`familylaw_step2`):** relation integrity (party/child/issue/proceeding ↔ case); DOB constraint rejects future/implausible dates; **find case by party name / child name / case_number** returns the right matter; **conflict screening surfaces a past-client opposing party** and does NOT auto-clear; a case can hold **multiple proceedings** and each carries its own state; questionnaire triage sets case type; **standard path enforces strict creation** (rejects incomplete submission); **emergency path commits on minimum facts** and raises the urgency flag; "do I have a good case?" is **captured as an attorney question, never answered**. **Constraints:** Odoo 18 syntax (``, direct attributes — no ``, no `attrs`/`states`). **No external/network calls in Step 2** (questionnaire is pure data capture; AI extraction of an uploaded judgment is Step 6+; conflict screening is a local DB search, not an AI call). Keep the gate philosophy intact — nothing here advises, decides, or auto-clears a conflict. **Done-when:** `familylaw_step2` tests green + a walkthrough where you (a) complete a *standard* modification intake and land on a new draft case with an initial proceeding; (b) complete an *emergency* intake and get a matter opened on minimum facts with the urgency flag set; (c) see a conflict flag when the opposing party matches an existing client; and (d) find an existing case by opposing-party name, by child name, and by case number. --- ## 9. Working agreements for Claude Code - **Read the relevant design doc (`00`–`11`) before each step**; this file says *what/next*, the docs say *why/detail*. - **One verifiable step at a time.** Don't scaffold ahead. Deliver code + tests + walkthrough, stop, confirm green, then continue. - **The two gates are sacred.** Never add a code path that lets AI output be filed/sent/signed without attorney approval, or lets an unverified citation into a filing. If a request would breach this, flag it instead of building it. - **Mock all external APIs in tests.** Never hit Claude/DocuSeal/CourtListener from a test. - **Verify volatile legal facts** (forms, rules, statutes) against current sources at build time; keep "verify current rule" in the flow rather than hardcoding a version as permanent. - **Owner profile:** experienced infra/dev (Proxmox, Docker, Postgres, Python, Odoo 18 in prod). Be direct and technical; prefer CLI; the owner version-controls in Gitea. Plan fully, validate each stage. - **This is not legal advice** and the platform must not practice law; a licensed attorney reviews, verifies, and signs all output. --- ## 10. Design-revision changelog (audit fixes applied to this revision) Nine flaws were found in a critical design review and fixed in this document: 1. **Training-data flywheel → safe improvement loop (§1).** The "attorney corrections become training data" claim risked leaking privileged client data (Rule 4-1.6) and assumed nonexistent fine-tuning infra. Replaced with prompt/example refinement + regression evals as the default; fine-tuning is future/gated on a de-identified, consented, separate corpus. 2. **Bare "reopen" → `familylaw.proceeding` model (§4, §7, §8).** Reopening one case repeatedly would conflate deadlines/documents/audit across distinct legal proceedings and contradicted doc 03. Now: one continuous case, each modification/enforcement is a child proceeding that owns its own deadlines/docs/state. 3. **Conflict checkbox → automated conflict screening (capability 3, Step 2).** A human ticking a box misses structural conflicts across many matters. Added a DB-wide party search that surfaces conflicts for the attorney to clear (attorney still decides). 4. **Strict creation vs. emergencies → conditional strictness (§4, Step 2/10).** Strict field requirements would block opening a genuine emergency matter. Now strict for standard intake, fast-path (minimum facts) when the urgency screen trips. 5. **AI cost/latency unmodeled → budgeted (§3, Step 6).** Added per-task token ceiling and cost+latency logging on `ai.task`; budget cost-per-assembled-case explicitly. 6. **CourtListener single point of failure → fail-closed + fallback + FL-coverage check (§3, Step 7).** Verification failure now keeps a cite blocked (never "assume good"), a fallback source is required, and Florida appellate coverage must be confirmed first. 7. **Non-lawyer operator confidentiality → supervision + matter-scoped access (capability 14, Step 14).** Added Rule 4-5.3 supervision layer, matter-scoped record rules, and the principle that staff never communicate legal positions to clients. 8. **DocuSeal caveats restored (§3, Step 11).** Surfaced the Pro-tier cost (~$200/yr for the API) and the internet-facing/isolated-host requirement at the architecture level. 9. **No retention policy → retention & destruction capability (capability 15, Step 12).** Added attorney-configured retention classes, a closed-matter destruction lifecycle, and client-file return at close (audit logs *that* destruction occurred, not the content). **Note:** none of these were defects in the delivered Step 1 *code* — they were in the surrounding design. Step 1 remains valid. The structural change that most affects forthcoming work is the `familylaw.proceeding` model (fix 2), which Step 2 introduces and Steps 3–5 build on. **Later additions (this revision):** 10. **Strength-of-support decision graph, NOT a success-percentage predictor (capability 6, EXCLUDED).** A requested "% chance of success per path" was declined as fabricated precision / functional legal opinion / liability, and replaced with a factual path-comparison graph (present-missing factors, requirements, effort, risks) that leaves the probability judgment to the attorney. 11. **Claude's role clarified as the quality-elevation layer (§1)** and a new **§11 "Requirements for Success"** added — the non-code gaps (engaged licensed attorney, practice-ownership model, malpractice insurance, engagement-letter AI clause, security/breach plan, operator UPL guardrails, content-maintenance process, the elicitation content, FL-proven citation source, eval/QA, cost model). #1 (attorney) and #2 (ownership) gate the venture; both are non-coding and run parallel to Steps 2–5. --- ## 11. Requirements for SUCCESS (non-code gaps that must be closed) The 15 capabilities make the software *function*. These items make the venture *succeed and stay legal*. Several are **launch-blockers**, not enhancements. They are not optional, and most cannot be solved by writing code. ### Critical — blocks the whole model 1. **A named, engaged, licensed Florida family-law attorney — NOW, not at launch.** The entire architecture routes assembled cases to a reviewing/signing attorney; with no such attorney, there is no one to hand the case to and the product cannot legally operate. This attorney must (a) **validate the legal logic** in docs 02/11 (forms, deadlines, avenues, 11th-Circuit specifics), (b) be the **actual reviewing/signing attorney**, and (c) **own the malpractice and Bar exposure**. *First concrete step: the attorney-review questionnaire (below) — it turns the researched-but-unvalidated legal logic into something a Florida attorney can confirm and sign off.* 2. **Settle "whose practice is this?" (ownership / business model).** Florida prohibits nonlawyer ownership of law firms and fee-splitting with nonlawyers. Clean model: **Active Blue builds/operates the software; a licensed firm uses it.** Problematic model: **Active Blue runs the practice** — no code fixes that. Resolve before building the Tier-3 legal-reasoning pieces, because the answer shapes how they're built and who the "attorney" in the workflow legally is. ### Launch-blockers — required before a single real client matter 3. **Malpractice insurance that contemplates AI-assisted work**, carried by the responsible attorney/firm. 4. **Engagement-letter framework with an AI-disclosure clause** — the client is told AI assists their matter and a licensed attorney reviews and is responsible. 5. **Security review + breach-response plan for privileged data.** The privacy-first stack is a head start, but privileged legal data + a non-lawyer operator + an internet-facing DocuSeal host needs an actual review, encryption-at-rest for case data, and an incident plan — not just good instincts. 6. **UPL guardrails for the human operator** (pairs with capability 14): the non-lawyer never communicates legal positions/opinions to clients; all legal questions route to the attorney; this is trained and enforced, not assumed. ### Ongoing — required to stay correct over time 7. **A legal-content maintenance process.** Florida changed alimony (2023) and subpoena rules (2025); forms get renumbered. Someone must **watch for rule/form/statute changes and update the logic** on a schedule. A case built on a repealed form is a malpractice event. "Verify current rule" handles point-in-time; this handles drift. 8. **The requirements/elicitation content itself** (unblocks capabilities 7 & 8). The per-case-type definition of "what a complete, winnable file requires" — elements, proof, forms, the strength factors the decision graph reads — **does not exist yet**. This is the artifact the attorney validates and the engine consumes; without it, completeness-scoring and research have nothing authoritative to check against. 9. **A citation-verification source proven for Florida** (pairs with §3 architecture): confirm CourtListener (+ fallback) actually covers FL DCA + Supreme Court family-law authority adequately before relying on the citation gate in production. 10. **A real evaluation/QA process before anything is client-facing.** The regression eval suite (doc 09 §9) wired to run before every prompt/model change; a defined bar the assembled output must clear; attorney spot-audits of approved work. ### Strongly recommended — for the product to actually deliver its promise 11. **Cost-per-assembled-case model** (pairs with §3 / Step 6): know the token cost and latency of a full matter so pricing and the economics hold; cap per-task spend. 12. **Client intake/consent for AI involvement** captured in the record (distinct from the engagement letter): the client's informed acknowledgment, logged. 13. **A "human-in-the-loop won't be skipped" enforcement audit**: periodic proof that no code path and no operator habit lets unreviewed/unsigned work reach a client, clerk, or court — the two gates verified in practice, not just in tests. **Bottom line:** of everything above, **#1 (the attorney) and #2 (the ownership model) gate the venture** — neither is a coding task, both should be moving in parallel with Steps 2–5, and #1 starts with the attorney-review questionnaire. The software can be ~80–90% built and validated and still cannot run a real matter until #1–#6 are closed.