In law and finance, a hallucination isn't just an error—it's a liability. We provide attorneys, CPAs, and compliance officers to rigorously evaluate your AI, ensuring regulatory alignment and zero fabricated citations.
Model generated invalid precedent (Smith v. Jones, 2018 - Overturned). Flagged for legal hallucination.
Language aligns with UCC § 2-615. Enforceable and compliant.
Calculation failed to account for non-recurring expenses. Material misstatement.
Semantic definitions of our legal and financial AI evaluation methodologies.
We simulate high-stakes edge cases to harden your model against financial and legal liabilities.
The invention of fake case law, fake statutes, or overturned precedents. Poses immediate malpractice risk for legal tech applications.
Errors in financial calculations, risk assessments, or accounting principles that could mislead investors or trigger SEC violations.
The model providing advice that circumvents KYC/AML protocols, insider trading laws, or data localization mandates.
Generating contract language that is legally unenforceable, ambiguous, or contradicts other clauses within the same document.
High-stakes AI requires high-stakes evaluators. We don't use generic labelers for finance and law.
Our pipeline ensures that the human intelligence grading your model possesses the exact domain credentials necessary to spot subtle, material errors.
We verify Bar admissions, CPA licenses, and compliance certifications (Series 7, 24).
Evaluators are tested on niche edge-cases (e.g., cross-border tax implications, derivatives law).
Experts grade model outputs against ground truth without knowing which model generated the text.
Experts write corrective "gold standard" responses to train the model on proper legal/financial reasoning.
Deploy attorneys and CPAs. Eliminate fabricated citations. Ship compliant AI.