Legal policy checks 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 policy checks slice of the legal intake routing pack. Intent: apply the Jev (TypeSafe System One) decision model to legal intake routing policy checks. Primary search language: Legal Jev policy checks. 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
A policy check is a typed question whose instructions + criteria are your rules about the intake narrative (redacted). Jev scores compliance; the matter router enforces. This is not a certification, and it is not a photocopy of a rival “policy engine” page — we keep rules atomic and ANDed in code.
Hub: Use cases. Compare, when the other tool is the real job: legal intake.
Policy Checks inputs
Put policy text and the artifact in structured state (never hope the model memorized last quarter’s PDF):
{
"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" }
}Name intake.text, playbook.privacy, meta.requestor_role.
Decision signals and actions
| Id | Rule | Enforce |
|---|---|---|
not_advice |
No question that asks what the law is | question lint |
redact_first |
Privilege/PII filter before POST | wrapper |
conflicts |
Conflict search stays in the matter system | DMS / CMS |
Typical primitives on the same request:
| 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? |
violations = [name for name, ans in policy_nouls.items() if ans.noul >= T_VIOLATION]
if violations:
return review(violations)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
Policy-in-state can be attacked (“ignore the policy”). High-risk sending work product outside the firm or closing a matter still needs deterministic checks. 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
Gold labels are policy-versioned. A criteria edit without replay is how silent false-allows ship. 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 | you are here |
| 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
One Score for “compliant”? No. Atomic Nouls per rule, AND/OR in code. Money and dates: extract in code first (jaggedness).
If a regex can enforce it, should I still call Jev? Skip Jev. Official “how to build” guidance: keep deterministic rules in code when you can.
Where is the rest of the Legal pack? Start with Legal decision workflow and Legal human handoff. 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.