Legal decision workflow with Jev
Intake forms and emails mix contract, employment, privacy, and “please just send a letter.” Counsel still owns advice. Jev routes the text you already collected after your privilege/PII filter. It does not draft opinions or file anything.
This unofficial page is the decision workflow slice of the legal intake routing pack. Intent: apply the Jev (TypeSafe System One) decision model to legal intake routing decision workflow. Primary search language: Legal Jev decision workflow. Confirm patterns on docs.typesafe.ai. This site does not sell, issue, or proxy TypeSafe keys. Use a credential you already have from the console or a documented gateway.
Independent angle (cover ≠ clone): Matter-type + privilege-risk Noul on redacted text — not a clone of a legal-intake SaaS page or “AI lawyer” voice.
Legal use-case context
Legal intake routing is a workflow, not a chat. Assemble a narrow state, ask the primitives below, and let the matter router branch. TypeSafe’s docs say a good question is a snap decision a knowledgeable person could make in a few seconds — not an open-ended analysis of the intake narrative (redacted).
Hub: Use cases. Compare, when the other tool is the real job: legal intake.
Decision Workflow inputs
Keep only fields the questions name:
{
"intake": { "id": "m-302", "text": "Vendor wants to use our logs to train models; need redlines this week." },
"playbook": { "privacy": "Training-on-logs or model-training clauses → privacy_queue." },
"meta": { "requestor_role": "procurement", "deadline_band": "this_week" }
}Point instructions at intake.text, playbook.privacy, meta.requestor_role. Drop unredacted opposing-counsel email chains; scans of passports or wet-ink signatures.
Decision signals and actions
| Id | Type | Job |
|---|---|---|
matter_type |
Choice | commercial / employment / privacy / disputes / other |
urgency |
Score | routine → hard deadline language |
privilege_risk |
Noul | Looks like advice-seeking or counsel comms that should stay restricted? |
All of these share state and run in parallel. Code owns the graph:
def legal_route(ans):
t = ans["matter_type"]
if ans["privilege_risk"].noul >= T_PRIV:
return "restricted_queue"
if t.confidence < FLOOR or t.choice == "other":
return "intake_attorney"
if t.choice == "privacy" or ans["urgency"].score >= 2:
return f"priority:{t.choice}"
return f"queue:{t.choice}"Do not treat a Noul of 0.5 as a “medium” legal intake routing score — it means yes and no are equally likely. Conjunctions stay in your code.
Guardrails and escalation
TypeSafe’s confidence-gated examples use a lower bar for recoverable reads than for irreversible actions. Those numbers are illustrations. For legal intake routing, treat auto_send_external as the high bar (sending work product outside the firm or closing a matter). Tune on labels — see offline evaluation.
Low confidence, matter_type == other, or a policy miss → human or safe default; do not send work product externally or close the matter.
Evaluation and rollout notes
Shadow: Humans assign matters as today; log Jev type only.
Canary: Auto-tag commercial vs privacy internally; never auto-send.
Pin jev-1.13.0 (the versioned id) after you fit thresholds. jev-latest and the marketing line jev-1.13 can move. Log the response model. TypeSafe’s published list price for jev-1.13 is $0.042 per million input tokens (vendor claim — confirm on the models page); output tokens are free on that same page. Unused distractors still bill as input.
Official Python and JavaScript SDKs read TYPESAFE_API_KEY and retry documented 429/529. This site does not sell, issue, or proxy TypeSafe keys. Use a credential you already have from the console or a documented gateway.
Pack map
| Slice | Page |
|---|---|
| Graph and primitives | you are here |
What may enter state |
input contracts |
| What to gather first | evidence collection |
| Atomic rules | policy checks |
| Act / review / abstain | confidence thresholds |
| Reviewer payload | human handoff |
| What to persist | audit trail |
| How it breaks | failure modes |
| Labeled replay | evaluation |
| Shadow → canary | production rollout |
FAQ
Does Jev execute the matter router action? No. It returns typed answers. Your matter router code calls queues, models, or humans.
Why several questions in one request? TypeSafe’s fan-out pattern: extra questions are cheap versus another HTTP call. Matter type, urgency, and privilege_risk belong in one request. A second call is for a new artifact (redline excerpt), not for “please also summarize the law.”
Where is the rest of the Legal pack? Start with Legal input contracts and Legal confidence thresholds. Cluster hub: Use cases.
Is this legal advice? No. Independent routing notes only. Counsel owns advice. Confirm facts on docs.typesafe.ai.
Can Jev write the contract redline? Not in this pack. Generation is a different job; keep this URL as typed routing.
What this page does not claim
- Not legal advice, not a law firm, not a privilege ruling.
- No accuracy claims.
- Not official TypeSafe.
- Official TypeSafe status, or that jev.pro issues API keys.
- That a schema-constrained answer is automatically factually correct.
Disclaimer
This is an independent unofficial site and is not affiliated with TypeSafe AI; official documentation is available at https://docs.typesafe.ai.
Primary documentation: https://docs.typesafe.ai. Hub: Use cases.
Sources
Public TypeSafe or adjacent documentation only. No private claims.