Sylos
AI search across MENA law — statutes and judgments, asked in plain language.
Search returns documents — the work needs the provision that governs.
Legal research across the region means several jurisdictions, primary sources in Arabic, and a question a practitioner can state in one sentence but cannot express as a keyword query. Conventional search returns documents. What the work needs is the provision that governs, the judgment that interpreted it, and a route back to the source that a colleague or a court can check.
A legal answer is not a document list. It is the provision that governs, read as it stood on the date in question, together with the judgment that interpreted it. Ranking by similarity will surface a repealed article and a superseded ruling with the same confidence as the ones still in force, because nothing in the text announces which is which.
Language is the second layer. The authoritative text is Arabic, the working language of the file is often English, and the term of art that translates smoothly is the one most likely to mislead: the words match and the legal meaning does not. Anything a practitioner will rely on has to route back to the source, in the language the court will read, so that a colleague or an opponent can check it.
How this case is written.
Every case answers the same six blocks, in the same order — the template is set out on the case-studies page. The sixth, what we would do differently, is the one a competitor will not copy.
The full case file — constraint, build, outcomes, and what we would change — is walked through in person.
The rest of this case is a conversation.
Ask what constrained it, where a person still decides, and what we would do differently if we started again. A demonstration answers none of those.