---
title: "How we use AI"
url: "https://ailawframework.com/how-we-use-ai"
type: "how_we_use_ai"
site: "AI Law Framework"
---

# How we use AI

> Where the AI Law Framework uses AI, where it does not, how its research is written down and checked, and what it does not claim.

Canonical page: https://ailawframework.com/how-we-use-ai

Site index for agents: https://ailawframework.com/llms.txt

## How we use AI

AI research agents draft parts of the library from published sources. This page says where AI is used on this site, where it is not, and what we do not claim.

Last updated 1 November 2026.

### What runs on this site

The public MCP server at `https://ailawframework.com/mcp` applies the framework’s rules to what the connected AI app sends and returns a reply. It does not call an AI provider. The wording, reading and drafting are done by the AI app you connected, under its own provider’s terms. The [privacy page](https://ailawframework.com/privacy.md#mcp) says what that server receives and keeps, and the [terms](https://ailawframework.com/terms.md) say who is responsible for what.

The firm connector at `https://ailawframework.com/mcp/firm` is separate. After you sign in and approve an app, it can return your firm’s approved policies, knowledge items and precedent text to that app and its provider. The [privacy page](https://ailawframework.com/privacy.md#ai-connections) says what that connector returns and keeps.

In the iPhone and iPad app, where Apple Intelligence is on, the short answer is written on the device by Apple’s on-device model, from published pages of this site. The question is not sent to Anthropic, OpenAI or any other AI provider.

### How the library is researched

AI research agents write library records from published sources, working to a written brief. For software profiles, the vendor brief’s house rules are: accuracy beats completeness, a blank beats a guess, every finding cites a source, and a source is cited only if it was actually read. Separate briefs cover practice tasks, precedents, official forms and workflows. Those briefs say not to invent a fact, a citation, a case, a section number, a form number or a date.

Each finding about a software product carries a label for how well it is backed: published terms, a published list, a vendor claim without contractual backing, true only under a stated plan or setting, sources that conflict, a default the firm must configure, or not verified. A finding that is not verified is kept, with the question the firm should put to the vendor, rather than left out.

Court and regulator rule records are delivered only when they are marked verified. The summary for a jurisdiction carries an as-of date. Each record says where its date came from. The date printed on the source is included only when the source prints one. When a research file records that nothing was found, its summary starts with No AI guidance found, names the as-of date, and a key point names the page or search that was checked. Published catalogue lines also use other absence wording, including No AI direction found.

### Checks on the research

Scripts check the shape of every research file before it becomes a database change, and the unit tests hold the published catalogue to the framework’s own rules. A frozen set of questions is re-run against the rules matcher, and the run fails if its answers change without anyone intending that.

A quarterly sampling procedure is written down: 30 published rule rows are drawn, and a person opens each source and notes whether the title, issuer and date still match the page. This page does not claim that a person has checked every record. On the framework’s screens, every judgement is one a person made, and the record says so.

### What this does not claim

Nothing here is legal advice, and nothing approves a tool or a piece of work. Court rules, regulator guidance and the law change, and the library can lag behind them: open the cited source and check it is current before you rely on it. The responsible lawyer decides, checks and approves the work. The [method page](https://ailawframework.com/how-it-works.md#limits) sets out the limits of what the framework decides.

The site follows ideas from [ISO/IEC 42001](https://ailawframework.com/frameworks/iso-iec-42001.md) where they fit, such as verifying output and sampling it against its sources. That is a description of practice. It is not a certification, and it does not say the service conforms to the standard.

To ask how a particular record was made, or to report one that is wrong, use [Enquiries](https://ailawframework.com/enquiries).