Legal failure modes 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 failure modes slice of the legal intake routing pack. Intent: apply the Jev (TypeSafe System One) decision model to legal intake routing failure modes. Primary search language: Legal Jev failure modes. 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 breaks in product-specific ways. This page lists those modes so you can write tests — not a generic “AI can be wrong” essay, and not a rival limitations-page clone.
Hub: Use cases. Compare, when the other tool is the real job: legal intake.
Failure Modes inputs
Many failures start as contract violations (distractors, missing intake narrative (redacted) text). Canonical shape:
{
"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" }
}Decision signals and actions
- Intake tools own matters and conflicts (compare).
- A privilege_risk Noul is not an attorney-client privilege ruling.
- Jaggedness: dates and dollar caps in the narrative should be extracted in code.
- Auto-sending a letter is out of scope — keep that floor unused unless counsel owns it.
- No invented cycle-time or “AI lawyer” accuracy.
HTTP vs application:
| You see | Class | Legal move |
|---|---|---|
| 401 / 422 / 429 / 529 | Documented HTTP | Fix key/body or back off — errors |
| 200 + flat confidence or Noul ≈ 0.5 | Low confidence | Hold; do not send work product externally or close the matter |
| Empty gather | Missing evidence | Skip Jev or ask “is enough information present?” |
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
Fail closed: do not send work product externally or close the matter. Schema-safe answers are not factual correctness. 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.
Evaluation and rollout notes
Your canary set should include each bullet above.
- Missed restricted_queue on planted privilege-seeking text
- Wrong matter_type at your floor
- False restricted (throughput vs safety)
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 | decision workflow |
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 | you are here |
| Labeled replay | evaluation |
| Shadow → canary | production rollout |
FAQ
If the API returns 200, is the decision good? 200 only means the call parsed. Low confidence, Noul ≈ 0.5, or a policy miss are application failures.
Where do official weaknesses live? TypeSafe’s jev-1.13 jaggedness note — distractors, arithmetic, adversarial content. We do not invent more.
Where is the rest of the Legal pack? Start with Legal evaluation and Legal decision workflow. 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.