Claims Matrix Factory

Complete Interface Guide
Tool for disciplined testing of potential legal engagement against established chronology

Interface Overview

The Claims Matrix Factory is used to test whether material already established in the chronology may engage specific legal provisions.

It does not determine liability, guilt, or outcome. It records disciplined analysis and uncertainty.

Preconditions

Critical: The Claims Matrix must not be used without a completed chronology.

All facts referenced in the matrix must already exist in the chronology. If a fact is not in the chronology, it does not belong here.

Matrix Structure

Each matrix row represents a single analytical unit.

  • ID: Reference only. No semantic meaning.
  • Head of Claim: Descriptive label, not a conclusion.
  • Defendant(s) / Entity: Scope of analysis, not attribution of guilt.
  • Core Facts: Material already present in the chronology.
  • Legal Basis: Statutory or common law provisions being tested.
  • Status / Forum: Procedural routing, not strength or merit.
The matrix separates facts, law, and assessment deliberately. Do not collapse these layers.

Certainty Markers

The Claims Matrix uses explicit certainty markers to prevent overstatement.

  • ✅ Exact — wording or provision matches the legislative source precisely.
  • 🟡 Partial — provision may be relevant but requires verification or refinement.
Certainty markers do not indicate that a breach occurred. They indicate the quality of alignment between text and source law.

Use of AI and External Legal Resources

AI output must be treated as advisory only.

AI may be used to:

  • Locate relevant legislation
  • Summarise statutory elements
  • Explain plain-language meaning

AI must not be used to:

  • Determine that an offence occurred
  • Populate the matrix automatically
  • Replace reading of primary legislation
  • Assert satisfaction of legal elements

The matrix records your assessment, not the AI’s opinion. Disagreement and uncertainty must be recorded explicitly.

Workflow

  1. Complete the chronology
  2. Identify potential legal touchpoints surfaced by events
  3. Research relevant legislation using primary sources
  4. Optionally consult AI for explanatory support
  5. Record provisional analysis and uncertainty
  6. Assign procedural status
  7. Emit the matrix
Unresolved or uncertain entries are valid outputs.

Design Principles

  • Claims are tested, not asserted
  • Uncertainty is first-class information
  • Law is referenced, not applied conclusively
  • The system does not adjudicate
  • The reader must perform reasoning
The Claims Matrix exists to prevent premature conclusions.

How NOT to Use This Tool

This section exists because misuse of a claims matrix causes more harm than having no matrix at all.

Do NOT treat this matrix as proof

The Claims Matrix does not establish facts, breaches, offences, liability, or guilt. If you present it as proof, you are overstating its authority.

Do NOT assert an offence because legislation is cited

Referencing legislation does not mean its elements are satisfied. A statutory citation is a question being tested, not an answer.

Do NOT reverse-engineer claims to fit outcomes

This tool must not be used to justify a conclusion you have already reached. If the analysis only moves in one direction, you are no longer testing — you are persuading.

Do NOT collapse uncertainty

Uncertainty is not a weakness to be hidden. If a provision is only partially understood or only partially engaged, it must be marked as such.

Do NOT rely on AI as authority

AI may assist research, but it does not determine legal meaning or factual application. If your entry reflects an AI conclusion rather than your own reading of primary sources, it is invalid.

Do NOT introduce new facts

All factual material must already exist in the chronology. If a fact is not recorded there, it does not belong in the claims matrix.

Do NOT confuse workflow status with merit

Labels such as “For pleadings”, “Live”, or “Referral option” describe process routing only. They do not indicate strength, likelihood, or correctness.

Do NOT present this matrix as legal advice

This tool does not provide legal advice and must not be represented as doing so. It records disciplined analysis for further consideration.

If a reader could reasonably mistake this matrix for a determination, then the tool has been misused.