Construction · Engineering · Étude de cas
Instead of digging through 32 pages of statute, just ask — and the supporting clause comes with the answer
Ce que ça vous donneAsk the 32-page Subcontracting Act something like "if we pay more than 60 days late, what about the late-payment interest?" and get an answer with the supporting clause and its source link attached.
A payment deadline is right around the corner. The design changed, so the amount owed to a subcontractor has to be recalculated — but how much of a deduction is actually legitimate? The staffer isn't sure. With a legal-information site open on one side of the monitor, he types "subcontracting law" into the search box, then hits Ctrl+F to find "late-payment interest" in the body. He reads one clause, and a phrase like "pursuant to Article ○" takes him off to yet another clause. Bouncing between the enforcement decree and the enforcement rules, he loses track of what he was trying to find in the first place.
This person is not a lawyer. He handles field and contract work at a large Korean construction and engineering firm, and every time he reviews an order or subcontract, or weighs a payment, a design change, or a special clause, he opens up the Fair Transactions in Subcontracting Act ("the Subcontracting Act") himself. Across a roughly 32-page text, he has to follow it alone — figuring out which clause applies to his situation, and which other provision that clause in turn points to.
What follows is the story of a customer PoC (proof-of-concept) demo currently underway with one construction firm. The goal was this: instead of digging through 32 pages, just ask in the words you'd normally use, and the answer arrives with the supporting clause attached. Here we walk through how that demo was built.
The material is one book of law — but the clauses point at each other
The material this staffer is up against is one book of law, roughly 32 pages. That isn't much volume, but to read a single provision properly you have to read the other provisions it references, plus the enforcement decree and enforcement rules attached to them. And the person doing this work is not a legal expert. He's someone who cracks open the statute book in between doing his actual job.
- The full text of the Fair Transactions in Subcontracting Act, roughly 32 pages, divided into articles, paragraphs, and items
- The enforcement decree and enforcement rules attached to the clauses. References like "pursuant to Article ○" run all the way out here
- Defined terms like "prime contract" and "subcontractor." The clauses are packed with them
- Tables that exist only as scans or images
- The judgment calls that converge on this one law: reviewing orders and subcontracts, payments, design changes, special contract clauses
Search, Ctrl+F, and trace the clauses by hand
The old approach was simple but grueling. You search "subcontracting law" on a legal-information site, and when the text comes up, you hit Ctrl+F with whatever keyword popped into your head. You read the clause that turns up, and when you hit a reference like "pursuant to Article ○," you go find and read that clause too — and then trace the attached enforcement decree and enforcement rules, one by one, by hand.
This flow had a few holes in it. If the keyword you thought of doesn't match the terminology the law actually uses, you miss the very clause that matters. Tracing the references between provisions by hand takes a long time. Because interpretation hinges on individual experience and skill, the same question could yield wildly different answer quality depending on who was looking at it. And even after digging for ages and reaching a conclusion, which clause that conclusion came from would scatter and vanish. When the basis doesn't survive, the next person has to dig through everything all over again just to trust that judgment.
Put one book of law in, and link the clauses to each other up front
The setup is a one-time thing. Put the full 32-page text into the workspace, and link the references between clauses up front. That's all of it.
Getting 32 pages into a state you can ask questions of
⌘⇧I → "Extract sources"
"Extract sources" puts the full 32-page text into the workspace. The body gets structured down to the article, paragraph, and item level, and tables that exist as scans or images are read in via OCR (the technology that turns letters inside an image into text).
The Activity center's "Build this workspace's knowledge graph?" → "Build"
Hit "Build" on the card. Cross-clause references like "pursuant to Article ○," defined terms, and the parties they apply to get woven into a knowledge graph (a map that connects concepts as points and lines). It's these links that mean nobody has to follow the hop from one clause to a related clause by hand.
You can ask while the build is still running
When the "Building knowledge graph" dialog comes up, choose "Send automatically when extraction finishes". Your question waits and goes out as soon as the build is done.
Open a "New chat" with ⌘⇧C
From here, all the staffer does is ask. You can throw the question out in the words you'd normally use, without knowing the legal terms.
Ask in the words you'd normally use, without knowing the legal terms
"If we pay more than 60 days late, what happens with the late-payment interest?"
→ The conclusion comes first, in easy-to-read natural language.
The supporting clause and its source link come up on the same screen.
The related provisions that "pursuant to Article ○" leads to are bundled in too.
"The design changed — who bears the added cost?"
→ You don't have to use terms like "prime contract" or "subcontractor".
The supporting clause and source link attach next to the conclusion the same way.
"Does putting this special clause in the contract run afoul of the law?"
→ Before accepting the conclusion, click the source link and check the original text right there.The reason this works is in the setup. Because the 32 pages are broken into articles, paragraphs, and items, the basis can be pointed at clause by clause. Because the references between clauses were linked up front, you don't just get the one clause your question hit — you get the provisions that clause points to as well. And because the search pulls in the clauses closest in meaning to your question, the staffer doesn't have to think of the legal term "late-payment interest" first in order to hit Ctrl+F.
The way the answer is delivered is different too. The conclusion is presented in easy-to-read natural language, but the supporting clause and the source link are always shown on the same screen. With the answer and its basis on one screen, you can check the original text directly before accepting the conclusion.
Being able to ask even when I don't know the exact legal terminology — that was the biggest thing.
What changes — and what hasn't been measured yet
| Before | Now |
|---|---|
| Search a legal-information site and Ctrl+F with whatever keyword came to mind | Ask in a chat opened with ⌘⇧C, in the words you'd normally use. You don't need the exact legal terms |
| If the keyword you thought of doesn't match the legal terminology, you miss the clause that matters | It pulls the clauses closest in meaning to your question, so it hits even when your wording differs from the statute's |
| Hit "pursuant to Article ○" and you trace the enforcement decree and rules by hand | The answer rides the links made up front and bundles the related provisions in with it |
| Only the conclusion survives; which clause it came from scatters and vanishes | The supporting clause and source link stay on the same screen as the answer |
Having the supporting clause come up alongside makes it trustworthy.
This is as far as what's confirmed goes. Structure the full 32-page Subcontracting Act down to the article, paragraph, and item level, link the references between clauses, then ask in the words you'd normally use — and the conclusion arrives with the supporting clause and source link on the same screen. Exactly what difference this approach makes to a non-lawyer's 32 pages is what we're confirming through validation right now.