Find a source
Without a precise reference, a summary leaves the reader searching again. The proposed control links the claim to its original passage. Cedar illustrates that link using three fictional documents.
OPENPROOF LEGAL · LAWYERS & LEGAL TEAMS
Trace the sources.
Hand over a case others can follow.
An unsupported claim, two conflicting versions, a case that is difficult to hand over: document review becomes a reconstruction task. OpenProof Legal is being developed to make that work reviewable, with sources and reservations available to the reader.
Compare plans →No account needed to explore and compare. Restricted pilot; purchases are not open.
01 / START WITH THE CASE
What the professional needs to examine.
Keep disagreement visible
When accounts differ, an early conclusion can hide what is missing. The proposed control preserves disagreement and the unresolved question until human review.
Hand over without losing reservations
The next reader needs to distinguish sourced material, uncertainty and review decisions. The RPO format and public examples expose that structure without validating the legal merits.
02 / A CHECKABLE EXAMPLE
Cedar : three sources, one unresolved question.
Ten lamps ordered, eight recorded as received, ten invoiced. The documents do not establish which quantities were inspected and accepted.
SYNTHETIC DEMONSTRATION
Read the three original sources ↗
These observations were written manually. This example does not demonstrate automatic contradiction detection. It takes no personal documents and provides no legal advice.
Examine Cedar without an account →Read the three original sources ↗
The fictional cofounder case illustrates a wider dispute: decisions, responsibilities, alleged losses and conflicting material. A local check also compares the scenario with its reference copy. Examine the cofounder case →
03 / AVAILABILITY AND LIMITS
What is accessible. What remains to be completed.
| Status | Scope |
|---|---|
| Accessible without an account | Presentation, pricing comparison and fictional examples. No personal document upload in those examples. |
| Restricted pilot · in testing | Access for authorised identities. Acceptance of the real-case workflow must be completed before commercial opening. |
| Not open | Purchases, public subscriptions and external self-service registration. Email and Apple paths are under separate technical review; they are not open. |
Each result requires human review. OpenProof does not decide questions of law or responsibility. The professional reviews the sources and remains responsible for decisions.
04 / DESIGN AND RESPONSIBILITIES
Conceived and led by Gersende.
TruthX founder and OpenProof designer Gersende Ryard de Parcey connects her transformation experience with decision traceability. Her design choices focus on retrievable sources, responsibilities, explicit reservations and human review.
The GREYC and Université de Caen Normandie contributions remain presented on the research page. The prototype delivered by Lucy Martin and Clément Correia-Peltier under Professor Gaël Dias’s supervision is a research foundation, not evidence of full product integration.
Founder and research team →Documented contributions and limits ↗