Legal Risk Begins
in the Reasoning
Validity audits the logic inside legal documents before arguments are relied upon—exposing unsupported inferences, hidden assumptions, and risk mischaracterisation.
Validity does not provide legal advice or interpret the law. It evaluates whether legal conclusions logically follow from the facts, authorities, and reasoning presented.
Most Legal Failures Are Logical, Not Legal
Before a claim fails, a contract collapses, or a dispute escalates, the underlying reasoning problems are usually already present in the document.
- Legal conclusions asserted without adequate factual linkage
- Inferences drawn beyond what the evidence supports
- Assumptions about intent, causation, or liability treated as established
- Risks minimised or omitted through selective framing
- Counterarguments acknowledged but not meaningfully addressed
These are reasoning failures, not unforeseeable outcomes. Validity is designed to surface them before legal positions are relied upon.
A Logic Audit for Legal Documents
Validity analyses legal briefs, memoranda, contracts, pleadings, and advisory opinions to evaluate:
- Whether conclusions logically follow from cited facts and authorities
- Where inferential leaps replace supported reasoning
- How dependent conclusions are on unstated or weak assumptions
- Whether counterarguments are engaged or merely noted
- Where risk exposure may be understated or structurally ignored
It does not draft arguments. It does not interpret statutes or case law. It evaluates whether the reasoning in the document holds together under scrutiny.
Before Filing. Before Signing. Before Reliance.
Validity is used at three critical points:
1. Pre-Filing Review
Stress-test the internal logic of pleadings, submissions, or advice before positions are formally taken.
2. Contract & Transaction Review
Evaluate agreements, representations, and risk allocations for logical gaps, unsupported assumptions, or exposure blind spots.
3. Post-Matter Review
Re-examine legal reasoning after disputes, losses, or adverse outcomes to identify structural weaknesses and prevent recurrence.
What It Detects
Validity flags reasoning patterns commonly associated with legal risk and adverse outcomes:
Unsupported Inference
Conclusions drawn that exceed what the facts or authorities reasonably support.
Assumption Substitution
Critical assumptions about liability, compliance, or enforceability treated as settled facts.
Incomplete Risk Framing
Downside scenarios acknowledged superficially or excluded from the reasoning chain.
Selective Authority Use
Supporting cases or provisions emphasised while limiting or contradictory authorities are minimised or omitted.
Unresolved Counterarguments
Opposing arguments identified but not meaningfully addressed within the reasoning structure.
Sample Output
Illustrative example of a Validity legal audit
Unsupported Inference
The memorandum concludes that contractual intent can be inferred from conduct without establishing a factual or doctrinal basis for that inference.
Assumption Substitution
Compliance risk is assessed on the assumption that regulatory interpretation will align with internal guidance, without supporting authority.
Selective Authority Use
Relevant limiting case law is not addressed in the analysis supporting the conclusion.
It Strengthens Legal Judgement
Legal teams use Validity to:
- Surface hidden assumptions before they become exposure points
- Test whether conclusions are defensible under adversarial scrutiny
- Identify reasoning gaps that peer review may miss
- Create audit trails that withstand post-dispute examination
Validity does not decide legal outcomes. It ensures the reasoning behind legal positions is structurally sound.