# AXIOM Analysis

## Law Analysis Guide

Version 1.0 | April 12, 2026

---

## Purpose

Use the Law domain when you want AXIOM to review legal text for ambiguity, clause interaction, inconsistency, exposure, weak support, and missing inputs.

This workflow is strongest when the material clearly includes:

- the legal text or filing text itself
- the governing context
- the disputed or important point
- the known facts
- what decision the review should support

---

## Best Starting Settings

### Review of legal text

- Domain: `Law`
- Modules: `review`
- Report depth: `Standard`
- Engine: `AXIOM Gateway` or `Auto`
- Live sources: `off`

### Risk-focused legal review

- Domain: `Law`
- Modules: `risk`
- Report depth: `Standard`
- Engine: `Gemini` or `Auto`
- Live sources: `on` only if outside context matters

### Broad legal pass

- Domain: `Law`
- Modules: `review`, `risk`
- Report depth: `Standard`
- Engine: `Gemini` or `Auto`
- Live sources: `on` when external authority or public-reference checking matters

---

## Current Law Pack Note

The current law intake library is centered on the patent filing workflow already prepared in this repository.

That means the most complete current law pack includes:

- the patent filing intake template
- the patent filing prompt
- a patent filing example request

You can still use the Law domain for broader legal document review, but the patent packet is the strongest prepared intake bundle right now.

---

## What To Prepare

Before you run the analysis, collect:

- the governing document or filing text
- the specific legal question
- the known facts
- the disputed points
- the strongest risk areas
- the missing authorities or facts

For patent-related review, also collect:

- claims
- support map
- prior art notes
- prosecution material if relevant

---

## Common Mistakes

- uploading only instructions and not the legal text
- asking for certainty where the record is incomplete
- using `fast` when a full structured review is needed
- failing to separate document text from interpretation
- not listing the missing facts that could change the answer

---

## Recommended Run Order

1. Start with `review + risk` and `Standard`
2. Improve the source pack if the result feels too generic
3. Use live sources only when external context genuinely matters
4. Only then try `Deep`

---

## Related Files

- `PATENT_FILING_ANALYSIS_INTAKE_TEMPLATE_2026-04-12.md`
- `PATENT_FILING_ANALYSIS_PROMPT_2026-04-12.txt`
- `LAW_ANALYSIS_EXAMPLE_PATENT_FILING_2026-04-12.txt`

---

End of Law Analysis Guide v1.0