Editorial guide
Source Pins, Receipts, and Hallucination Controls in Legal AI
Why a citation is not the same as support, how page pins should survive a workflow, and what a verification receipt can and cannot prove.
By Jake Bauman. Updated August 12, 2026. Under Seal verification review; lawyer verification remains mandatory. No named legal review is claimed unless identified here.
Short answer
A source pin connects a proposed factual line to a specific document and page. A verification receipt records the artifact version, sources, checks, gaps, review decision, and export state. Neither proves the source true, the record complete, a case still valid, or a legal conclusion correct.
Key takeaways
- Citation existence, quotation accuracy, page support, and legal validity are different checks.
- A pin must survive drafting, editing, review, and export without detaching from the statement.
- Fail closed when support cannot be established; do not turn ‘not found’ into a confident answer.
Editorial methods are identified as such. Numbered links beside a paragraph or section point to the authority or framework relevant to that claim; a source does not certify Under Seal or replace current jurisdiction-specific review.
Four separate verification questions
Basis: editorial method
A system that answers only the first question should not market itself as verifying legal correctness. Negative-treatment and completeness claims also depend on the coverage of the authority corpus and the date it was reviewed.
- Does the cited authority or document exist?
- Does the quoted language occur at the stated location?
- Does the source actually support the proposition as worded?
- Is the authority current, controlling, applicable, and used consistently with the lawyer’s duties?
What belongs in a receipt
Basis: editorial method
Record stable matter, artifact, source, and version identifiers; checksums where appropriate; source locators; coverage and hold states; validator versions; failures; reviewer identity; signoff; and export eligibility. Earlier receipts should remain available when a human edit creates a new artifact version.
Human review is part of the system
Basis: external sources listed below
A named reviewer should inspect the proposed line beside its source and choose accept, edit, reject, or not found. A named attorney should approve work leaving the firm when the workflow requires it. Signing must not override unresolved blocking checks.
Sources for this section: [1] Formal Opinion 512: Generative Artificial Intelligence Tools (opens in a new tab)
Authorities and frameworks
Each source is classified below. It may govern a specific legal point, offer professional or government guidance, or provide a voluntary framework. The collection does not validate every editorial method in this guide and does not resolve a firm-specific question.
- [1]Formal Opinion 512: Generative Artificial Intelligence Tools Opens in a new tab. — American Bar Association · Ethics guidance
Connect the general guidance to the product record
Continue the review
Under Seal is pre-release software, not a law firm. Do not submit matter details or client documents through this website.
Request a no-client-data readiness review