01
Check that you received the recorded file.
Compare the supplied source with its recorded fingerprint. If a file changed during the handoff, the result identifies the mismatch.
A matching hash does not prove the source is true.
Legal AI citation verification for litigation teams
Find the citation problem
before you approve the draft.
A partner needs to know which passage needs correction and which authority still needs review. BRON’s verifier shows what the supplied evidence confirms, what disagrees and what could not be checked. Hand the next lawyer the files to repeat those checks.
Try a fictional filing below, without an account. This sample checks a prepared filing-and-source bundle. It does not research an arbitrary brief or replace your citator.
See the problem before sign-off
See the quotation the reviewer needs to fix.
The fictional motion misquotes an opinion by one word. Its report records that defect and an authority that was never opened. Load the sample, find the affected citation, then change the evidence to see how the result responds.
The files are checked in your browser. Once the sample is loaded, its checks can be re-run offline. The optional timestamp lookup sends a digest only when requested.
Verify a filing manifest
Start with the sample below, then try the changes that should break it. Every check runs in this browser. Nothing is uploaded. Once the evidence is loaded, the checks work offline.
Sample bundle · Miami-Dade Circuit Civil · Case No. 2025-003417-CA-01
Nothing to drop yet? Use ours.
A short excerpt from a Motion to Compel in a fictional Florida matter, its provenance manifest, and the two Supreme Court of Florida opinions it quotes, as text so the quote check can run here. One quotation in the excerpt is deliberately wrong by a single word, and the manifest says so. One cited authority was in the producer's file but never opened, and the manifest says that too.
What is in the bundle
- sample.manifest.jsonthe manifest
- sample-filing.txtthe filing's text (a Motion to Compel excerpt)
- Tiara-v-Marsh-McLennan_110-So3d-399.txtTiara Condo. Ass'n v. Marsh & McLennan Cos., 110 So. 3d 399 (Fla. 2013)
- Comptech-v-Milam_753-So2d-1219.txtComptech Int'l, Inc. v. Milam Commerce Park, Ltd., 753 So. 2d 1219 (Fla. 1999)
- README.txthow to run this offline
The verifier is MIT-licensed. A recipient may run it offline, with no account and no network, against these same files; the README explains how.
This sample's digest was never committed to a timestamp ledger, so the optional timestamp check below will report that no commitment exists. That is the honest answer, and a fresh proof would be pending, not confirmed.
A timestamp shows the manifest existed at that time. It does not show that no other version exists or that nothing was left out.
Know what needs attention before sign-off.
02
Find the quotation that needs correction.
Check the quoted words against the supplied source text. The result identifies a mismatch for review. A source that was never opened stays advisory.
A quotation match does not settle an argument's legal meaning.
03
See which checks you still need to do.
Re-run the report’s named checks against its evidence. Read the filing result alongside the report result: an accurately reported citation failure still needs attention.
A valid manifest does not make the filing ready to use.
Read the result before using the draft
Read the filing result before approving the work.
The sample’s report is accurate: it declares a citation unverified, and the supplied source confirms the problem. The filing still needs correction. Read both results before deciding what to use.
The report matches the evidence
The manifest’s named results can be reproduced from the supplied files. Read the filing result as well; the sample report correctly declares a citation unverified.
A source or check is missing
That part of the work remains unchecked. Obtain the required evidence or review the source yourself before relying on the affected statement.
The supplied evidence disagrees
Inspect the mismatch before proceeding. A changed file, altered quotation or false declared result can break a check. The result identifies the problem; it does not repair the filing.
Partner review, co-counsel and handoff
Let the next lawyer check it without your account.
Send the manifest, the filing and the source files required by its checks. The recipient can inspect the same evidence and re-run the checks, rather than relying on a screenshot of your result.
BRON's MIT-licensed verifier can run offline without an account. It is BRON-authored software with a published format. A digest can show that an artifact existed; it cannot establish that nothing was withheld.
See what an export lets a recipient checkFrom a check to a decision
Make the next review about the unresolved questions.
Take the affected passage, its source and the check result into review together. The lawyer decides whether the authority controls, whether later law changes the analysis and what must change before the filing can be used.
Know what your citation check establishes.
What does legal AI citation verification check?
Different checks answer different questions: whether an authority was identified, whether supplied bytes match a recorded fingerprint, and whether a quotation appears in supplied source text. BRON's sample exposes its named checks and their results. Legal applicability remains an attorney review question.
Can this sample check any brief I upload?
The sample runs a provenance manifest with its filing and supplied source files. It is not a general brief-upload research service. The full verifier accepts your own manifest bundle and identifies checks that could not run because evidence is missing.
Is this Bluebook checking or a replacement for Shepard's or KeyCite?
The sample demonstrates source and manifest checks. It does not certify citation formatting or replace licensed citator research, jurisdiction analysis or an attorney's assessment of later treatment.
Do the files leave my browser?
The verifier reads and checks the files locally. Loading the demonstration retrieves its sample files. The optional timestamp lookup sends a digest only when requested; it does not upload the documents.