After analyzing all 24 building_permit decisions in style_corpus DB
(not just the 2 local files), refined two anti-patterns:
1. Sub-headings: actually permitted when block-yod handles 3+ distinct
legal issues (e.g., 1079-24 had "הבקשות לפסילה" / "מעמד המבקשת
וזכות עמידה" / "עותרים ציבוריים"). The earlier rule of "no
sub-headings except academic cases" was too strict — based only on
small local sample.
2. Paragraph numbering: discovered it's an evolutionary pattern, not
a static rule. Pre-2025 decisions had sequential paragraph numbers
(1, 2, 3 throughout); recent decisions (1126-25, 1128-25, 1130-25,
1194-25) abandoned it for narrative flow. The agent should NOT add
paragraph numbers — the new style.
The (1)...(2)...(3)... in-paragraph enumeration ban remains absolute —
0/33 final decisions used it. Distinction now made explicit:
in-paragraph enumeration ≠ paragraph-level numbering (former always
forbidden; latter is evolutionary).
Updated:
- docs/daphna-voice-fingerprint.md — corpus stats, refined anti-patterns
- .claude/agents/legal-writer.md — checklist with new distinctions
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Synthesized two voice documents from corpus reading:
- docs/voice-1130-25.md: deep read of case 1130-25 block-yod (5000 words),
extracting the 9-movement funnel architecture, 8 reasoning templates,
10 'we' verbs with their distinct functions, the 'akhen...ulam' pattern,
pacing/silence principles, and the deliberative meta-narrative.
- docs/daphna-voice-fingerprint.md: cross-corpus synthesis of 10 finals
(1 planning + 9 appraisal levy). Identifies 10 invariants, 5 opening
modes mapped to outcome certainty, mandatory ברמ 3644/13 preamble for
shamai cases, copy-paste templates, and 7 anti-patterns to avoid.
Updated .claude/agents/legal-writer.md:
- Added voice docs as MUST-READ before block-yod (was missing the deep
voice layer; only had surface style_guide patterns)
- Replaced the ' (1)...(2)...(3)...' enumeration template with the 5 opening
modes (the enumeration was a known anti-pattern Daphna always removes)
- Added the 'we' verbs catalog with explicit functions
- Made 'אכן...אולם' pattern mandatory for issues with substantial
counter-arguments (was vaguely 'אמנם...אולם')
- Added mandatory ברמ 3644/13 preamble for 8xxx shamai cases
- Added self-citation triple-mode (refer/defer/distinguish) — Daphna's
emerging practice of building personal jurisprudence
- Added 8-item anti-patterns checklist for post-write review
- Replaced block-yod-alef section with proper 4-paragraph closing
template (process narrative → outcome → costs → date)
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Lets the chair generate a partial decision DOCX before the discussion-and-
ruling block is decided. Same template, skill and DOCX styling as the final
decision (David, RTL, bookmarks) — only the block selection and order differ:
רקע (ו) → תכניות+היתרים (ט) → טענות (ז) → הליכים (ח). The opening (ה),
ruling (י), summary (יא), and signatures (יב) are omitted.
- New appraiser_facts table + CRUD + conflict detection in db.py (V5 schema).
Conflict = same plan/permit identifier reported differently by 2+ appraisers.
- New appraiser_facts_extractor service: per-appraisal Claude extraction of
plans + permits with raw quotes and page numbers.
- block-tet prompt extended with a permits sub-section sourced from the
extracted facts, plus an explicit instruction to flag inter-appraiser
conflicts in neutral wording without resolving them (deferred to block-yod).
- block-chet prompt extended with a post-hearing materials context sourced
from documents.metadata.is_post_hearing.
- docx_exporter.export_decision now accepts mode='interim' which reorders
the blocks per the chair's mental model and writes
טיוטת-ביניים-v{N}.docx (versioned independently of regular drafts).
- 3 new MCP tools: extract_appraiser_facts, write_interim_draft,
export_interim_draft. write_interim_draft auto-runs extraction if the
appraiser_facts table is empty for the case.
The old architecture.md was out of date (mentioned n8n which isn't used,
wrong embedding dimensions, missing multi-tenancy, no edit loop).
The rewrite documents the full process end-to-end:
1. Document upload + OCR + embedding
2. Analysis (proofreader, researcher)
3. Outcome + direction decision (CEO + human)
4. Deep analysis (pass 2)
5. Drafting (writer writes 12 blocks)
6. QA
7. Initial DOCX export (with bookmarks for future revisions)
8. Edit loop with Track Changes — the new architecture:
a. User downloads + edits in Word + uploads עריכה-v{N}.docx
b. Backend auto-retrofits bookmarks + registers as active_draft
c. User asks CEO for specific change in Paperclip comment
d. CEO stage G: calls writer in revision mode → builds revisions JSON
e. docx_reviser applies <w:ins>/<w:del> preserving user's template
f. User Accept/Reject from Word Review tab
g. Repeat until marked final
Plus MCP tool reference, API endpoints, DB schema, multi-tenancy,
technology stack.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
New "Agents" tab in case detail shows all Paperclip agent comments,
issue status, and agent status for each case — eliminating the need
to switch between Legal-AI and Paperclip UIs.
Backend: 4 new DB query functions in paperclip_client.py (issues,
comments, agents, post_comment) + 2 new API endpoints (GET/POST
/api/cases/{case_number}/agents). Comment posting uses Board API
with DB+wakeup fallback to ensure CEO routing.
Frontend: agents.ts hooks (10s polling), AgentActivityFeed component
(markdown timeline + comment input), AgentStatusWidget (sidebar),
4th tab in case detail page.
Also includes new-company-setup-guide.md documenting the process
for setting up the betterment levy (CMPA) company.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
"בית ספר להחלטות" Phase 2 — the system now has formal analytical
methodology for building quasi-judicial decisions, separate from
Dafna's writing style (SKILL.md) and content checklists.
What was done:
- Downloaded 5 authoritative sources (~341K words): FJC Judicial
Writing Manual (1991+2020), Garner Legal Writing in Plain English,
Posner How Judges Think, Scalia/Garner Making Your Case
- Extracted principles from all sources into intermediate docs
- Synthesized into docs/decision-methodology.md (3,400 words,
12 sections, 10 guiding principles)
- Integrated methodology into block-yod prompt via {methodology_guidance}
- Restructured legal-writer agent workflow to follow analytical stages
- Made "answer all claims" flexible (bundle/skip via chair_directions)
- Added methodology compliance check (#7) to legal-qa agent
- Updated all knowledge files (CLAUDE.md, SKILL.md, lessons, corpus)
Three-layer architecture:
1. Methodology (decision-methodology.md) — universal, how to think
2. Content checklists (lessons.py) — specific per appeal subtype
3. Style (SKILL.md) — Dafna's personal writing patterns
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Addresses Dafna's observation that licensing decisions lack comprehensive
planning discussion. Systematic corpus analysis of all 24 training decisions
revealed the system learned writing style but not substantive content.
Changes:
- Corpus analysis of all 24 decisions (docs/corpus-analysis.md)
- 5 content checklists by appeal subtype injected into block-yod prompt
- chair_feedback DB table + API endpoints + MCP tools
- Feedback management page in Next.js UI (/feedback)
- Navigation updated with "הערות יו״ר" link
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
- Remove cases/new|in-progress|completed subdivision (status managed in DB)
- Rename documents/original → documents/originals (consistent plural)
- Move exports from global data/exports/ into cases/{num}/exports/
- Add documents/research/ for case law and analysis files
- Update all agents, scripts, config, web API endpoints, and DB paths
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
