LICET RESEARCH LAB / CASEFILE STUDIO
Follow the decision.
Find the missing evidence.
Turn a public record into a focused authorization review.
Trace the chain. Answer the gaps. Leave with a next step.
Public source material
Public material only. Drafting uses local text rules. Your material and answers stay in this tab.
Your casefile starts with one paste.
Use your public material or try the fictional example. No other fields are required.
FICTIONAL EXAMPLE
Edit suggested system or date
Inferred from the text where possible. Leave blank when the source does not identify one.
THE AUTHORIZATION CHAIN
Every decision leaves a trail.
Close the evidence gaps
A public-record gap is not proof of an internal gap. Answer what you know; skip the rest.
Source excerpts
Draft matches from the supplied text, not verified findings. Inspect or correct only if needed.
One estimate. One next step.
Add estimate context or assignment details
About this research prototype & method
This version uses browser-local text rules to suggest excerpts and evidence requests. No material is sent to an AI service. Missing information remains a question; allegations are not findings. A source-backed draft is not independent verification or a compliance assessment.
Your material, answers, estimates, and memo stay in this tab. Copy or download before refreshing or closing. The app does not save casefiles.
Research question: After reviewing one automated moderation decision, does a platform GC identify an evidence gap worth assigning someone to investigate this quarter?