Citations you can stand behind in court.
Lawyers have been hauled up and sanctioned for filing AI-invented cases. A tool that hallucinates citations is worse than no tool. So Miss Lucy is built the other way round — nothing reaches you until it has been checked against a real corpus.
Three layers, before a cite reaches you
Checked against a real corpus
Every reporter citation she writes is matched against tens of thousands of actual Supreme Court judgments. A cite attached to a case with no matching record in the corpus is flagged and blocked — not delivered with a shrug.
Pinpoints validated, not guessed
A paragraph pinpoint has to actually exist in that judgment's own numbering. If the map isn't there, she won't manufacture one — the pinpoint is dropped rather than invented.
An independent second pass
Before a finished work-product goes out, a separate fact-checking pass re-derives it against the sources — intent and authority both. It re-does the work to confirm the work, and marks anything it can't stand behind.
A generic chatbot vs Miss Lucy
| When the citation is shaky | A generic chatbot | Miss Lucy |
|---|---|---|
| A citation with no record in the corpus | Delivered as fact | Blocked before you see it |
| A reporter cite that doesn't match the case | Slips through | Caught as a mismatch |
| A paragraph pinpoint | Plausible-looking guess | Checked, or dropped |
| The finished opinion / draft | One-shot output | Independently re-verified |
The honest part
No system is infallible, and Miss Lucy never asks you to take a cite on faith — she shows you the source so you can confirm it in seconds. The point isn't to remove your judgment. It's to make sure the citation in front of you is real before you spend that judgment on it.