EvenUp vs Supio: how they compare in 2026

The models are the entire product and the company was built around a proprietary dataset to feed them. Piai is named as EvenUp's own AI engine and the vendor's central technical claim is that it is trained on a large personal injury specific dataset rather than adapted from a general model, which is the same shape as Jhana.ai: build the corpus first, then the models, then the interface. Every deliverable is model output. Medical chronologies are generated from raw records with treatment timelines and ICD extraction, demand letters are generated end to end, case valuations are derived from a settlement repository, and analytics sit on top of the extracted data. Remove the models and nothing remains but a document store the firm already had. Independent review material reaches the same conclusion from outside, describing it as a vertical drafting engine trained on injury cases rather than a general legal assistant. Fourth A on this axis in the pull, after Reveal, Jhana.ai and Descrybe.

An AI first company in the literal sense: founded in 2021 to build this, with no preceding product to attach models to. CaseAware AI is named as the proprietary technology and the vendor's framing is that it distinguishes facts from opinions across large volumes of records, which is a model capability claim rather than a workflow claim. Every deliverable is generated: chronologies from raw medical records, demand letters, case economics ledgers, litigation drafts and deposition analysis. Supio Agent, launched in the first half of 2026, is directed through natural language instruction rather than configured through forms, which is an agentic architecture rather than an assistant bolted onto a case system. Remove the models and there is no product, only a connection to case management systems the firm already owns. Fifth A on this axis in the pull and the second consecutive one in this category, which is itself a finding: plaintiff side vendors were built model first because the underlying task, reading a banker's box of medical records, was never automatable any other way.

Grounding is structural and visible in the deliverable, and no measured figure is published by the vendor. Medical chronologies carry citations back to source documents so a reviewer can verify any entry against the underlying record, which is the correct architecture when the output is a factual account of someone's treatment. Demand packages cite comparable verdicts drawn from the settlement repository, so the valuation argument is traceable to named prior outcomes rather than asserted, and a Thomson Reuters and Westlaw integration supports legal citation. Held at B on two gaps. Two accuracy figures circulate in third party material and neither was located in vendor material with methodology attached: that chronologies capture over 90 percent of relevant medical information on first pass, and that demands are 69 percent more likely to reach policy limits. Both are the kind of number this axis exists to test and neither is published with a sample, baseline or definition, so neither is credited. And nothing states what the system does when a record is illegible, contradictory or missing, which in medical record work is the common case rather than the edge case.

The best grounding architecture in this category and still no published measurement. Citations are stated to be page level, back to the source document, for any claim made in a demand, which is finer grained than EvenUp's document level citation and is the right resolution for medical record work where a single treatment note inside a 400 page file is the evidence. The vendor also builds verification into the workflow rather than leaving it to the reader: for high value cases human experts verify medical bill summations and damage calculations before delivery, which targets the arithmetic most likely to be wrong and most consequential if it is. Held at B because nothing measured is published: no extraction accuracy, no recall on treatment events, no error rate on bill summation, no evaluation of the fact versus opinion distinction that CaseAware is named for, and no statement of behaviour when records are illegible, contradictory or incomplete. The one circulating figure, 80 plus hours saved per case, is throughput and not accuracy, and independent material reporting it notes that most such benchmarks come from vendor marketing.

Oversight is sold as a product tier, which makes it inspectable rather than aspirational. Demands are offered across tiers running from instant AI generation through Express Demands to an expert reviewed tier where an in house team quality checks the document before delivery, and independent material notes the human quality assurance step adds turnaround time, which is the honest trade off made visible in the pricing structure. Output is consistently positioned as a draft with attorney review required. Held at B because the mechanics are not published: no statement of what the in house reviewers check or against what standard, no description of what distinguishes the tiers beyond speed, no confidence indication on generated content, and no account of what happens in the instant tier where no human sits between generation and the attorney's inbox. Same shape as Mitratech Managed Bill Review, where a documented human layer exists for customers who buy it and the unattended path is undescribed.

Oversight is differentiated by case value, which is a more thoughtful design than a single tier and is published plainly. For high value cases human experts verify medical bill summations and damage calculations, so the human check is targeted at the numbers that determine settlement rather than applied uniformly or not at all. The agentic layer is directed by the attorney through explicit natural language instruction, with published examples showing the lawyer specifying what to emphasise and asking the system to double check a medical bill total, which places the attorney in the loop by design rather than by policy. Every output is positioned as a draft carrying linked sources for verification. Held at B because the boundaries are undefined: no statement of what makes a case high value enough to trigger expert verification, no description of what those experts check or against what standard, no confidence indication on generated content, and no account of what Supio Agent may do unattended once instructed.

Outcome claims are specific, named firms appear, and the strongest source available flags the whole class as vendor supplied. Reported: Lundy Law increasing output from about 30 to about 110 monthly demand packages after adopting AI tooling without adding staff, and J. Chrisp Law reclaiming 80 hours per case in paralegal time. Those are named firms with quantified operational change, which is better evidence than most of this index carries. The vendor level claim that demands are 69 percent more likely to reach policy limits is the most consequential figure attached to this product because it speaks to case outcome rather than throughput, and it carries no methodology, comparison group or sample. The independent guide reporting these figures states plainly that most such benchmarks come from vendor marketing and that results depend on case complexity and record volume. Held at B and recorded as Third Party Estimated on that footing: the adoption story is credible and consistently reported, and none of it was located as a vendor published case study with methodology on 29 Aug 2026.

Company milestones are well evidenced and customer outcomes are not. Strong and checkable on the company: approximately $85m to $91m raised across three rounds, a $25m Series A on emergence from stealth in August 2024 and a $60m Series B in April 2025 led by Sapphire Ventures, with a named investor list including Thomson Reuters Ventures, Mayfield, Greylock and Menlo Ventures. A strategic partnership with Thomson Reuters, expanded in 2026, is meaningful third party validation because that counterparty is also an investor and a competitor's parent. Supio Agent launched in the first half of 2026. What is missing is the customer side: no law firm is named anywhere in located material, no case study with methodology, and no usage figure. The single outcome claim, 80 plus hours saved per case when combining chronologies with demand generation, carries no baseline, sample or definition and is reported in independent material that flags the whole class as vendor supplied. Funding is not evidence that the product works, and this record has a great deal of the former and little of the latter.

The strongest confidentiality evidence in this category and the first record on the index where a health specific credential is the load bearing one. This product ingests complete medical records, billing statements and treatment histories for injured claimants, so the confidential material is not only the client's legal matter but a third party's protected health information. Against that: an independently assessed HIPAA compliance attestation validating implemented safeguards for PHI, and a SOC 2 Type 2 examination whose named scope includes confidentiality and privacy as well as security and availability. The vendor also states it supports customers handling sensitive information through contractual, technical, organisational and compliance measures, which acknowledges the business associate relationship a plaintiff firm needs. Held at B rather than A because nothing addresses legal professional privilege or attorney work product specifically: a demand package is work product, the case strategy embedded in a valuation is privileged, and the published posture speaks to health data protection and general security without reaching the legal dimension at all.

The broadest health privacy credential set in the category, and privilege itself remains unaddressed. Stated: SOC 2 Type II certification alongside compliance with HIPAA, PHIPA and GDPR. PHIPA is the notable one and no other record on this index names it: Ontario's Personal Health Information Protection Act governs health information custodians in Canada, and naming it alongside Canadian data centres indicates the vendor addressed a specific regional health privacy regime rather than treating HIPAA as sufficient everywhere. For a platform ingesting complete medical records for injured claimants, protecting a third party's health information under the right regime for the jurisdiction is the core confidentiality question and it is answered. Held at B because nothing addresses legal professional privilege or attorney work product: demand strategy, case economics ledgers and litigation drafts are work product, and the published posture covers health data and general security without reaching the legal dimension. Same placement as EvenUp, reached the same way.

Not located in vendor material. The product generates the demand letter a firm sends to an insurer, which is an advocacy document making legal and valuation arguments on a client's behalf, and it generates the case valuation that shapes settlement advice. Independent material states consistently that output is a draft requiring attorney review, and that framing was not located as a vendor published position. Nothing addresses the supervising attorney's duty over machine drafted advocacy, the professional responsibility of relying on a machine generated valuation when advising a client whether to settle, or any bar guidance. The gap matters more here than on a research tool because the output goes out under the firm's name to an adverse party. Checked the product and blog material, the trust centre summary and the site navigation on 29 Aug 2026.

Not located. The platform drafts demand letters sent under the firm's name to adverse insurers, produces litigation drafts, and generates case economics that inform settlement advice to an injured client. Nothing published addresses the supervising attorney's duty over machine drafted advocacy, the professional responsibility dimension of relying on generated damage calculations when advising a client whether to accept an offer, or any bar guidance. The human expert verification tier is a quality control mechanism operated by the vendor rather than a statement about the attorney's own professional obligations. Checked the product pages, the demand letter page, the press page and the site navigation on 29 Aug 2026.

Nothing published about how the models are governed or evaluated. No AI policy, no model card, no bias or fairness testing, no evaluation methodology or result, no accuracy monitoring, no drift statement, no named governance body and no ISO 42001. The untested risk on this product is specific and serious: case valuation is generated from a settlement repository of past outcomes, and historical personal injury settlements carry the demographic and geographic patterns of who was compensated well and who was not. A valuation engine trained on that history can reproduce those patterns for a new claimant while presenting the result as a data backed figure, and nothing published indicates whether that has ever been examined. Checked the product material, the blog including the compliance announcements, the trust centre summary and the site navigation on 29 Aug 2026.

Nothing published about how the models are governed, evaluated or monitored. No AI policy, no model card, no bias or fairness testing, no evaluation methodology or result, no accuracy monitoring, no drift statement, no named governance body and no ISO 42001. The category specific risk flagged on the EvenUp record applies here in a different form and is equally untested: this product generates case economics ledgers and damage calculations that shape what an injured claimant is told their case is worth, and any systematic tendency in how the models weigh treatment, life impact or pain and suffering evidence would fall on claimants rather than on the firm. CaseAware is named for distinguishing facts from opinions in medical records, which is an interpretive judgement about clinical documentation, and nothing published indicates that judgement has been evaluated. Checked the product pages, the press page, the company material and the site navigation on 29 Aug 2026.

Handling is credentialed and the training question is unanswered. The HIPAA attestation and the SOC 2 Type 2 privacy and confidentiality scope establish that safeguards over protected health information have been independently assessed, which is real stewardship evidence and more than most of this index carries. What was not located is any statement on whether medical records, demand drafts, case files or settlement outcomes submitted by firms are used to train or improve Piai, how long client content is retained, or whether a firm can require deletion. The question is unavoidable for this vendor rather than incidental: its central technical claim is a proprietary model trained on a large personal injury specific dataset, and nothing published states where that dataset came from or whether customer matters continue to feed it. A credential covering how data is protected is not a statement about what it is used for. Checked the trust centre summary, the compliance announcements, the product material and the site navigation on 29 Aug 2026.

Handling is credentialed across multiple regimes and the training question is unanswered. SOC 2 Type II, HIPAA, PHIPA and GDPR compliance establish that safeguards over health and personal data have been addressed, and stated data centres in three countries indicate deliberate architecture rather than incidental hosting. What was not located is any statement on whether medical records, case files, demand drafts or deposition transcripts submitted by firms are used to train or improve CaseAware, how long client content is retained, or whether a firm can require deletion at matter close. GDPR compliance implies data subject rights machinery for personal data, and an injured claimant whose records sit in the platform is a third party to the customer relationship rather than a party to it, which makes the deletion question harder rather than easier. A credential describing how data is protected is not a statement about what it is used for. Checked the product pages, the press page and the site navigation on 29 Aug 2026.

No published position located. Nothing was found on liability for AI output, warranty, service levels or remedy. The exposure profile is unusually concrete here: a missed injury, a misread treatment date or an omitted provider in a generated chronology flows straight into a demand letter and can understate a claim, and an understated demand that settles is a loss the claimant never learns about. A generated valuation that anchors a firm low has the same shape. No published vendor position addresses any of it, and the risk sits with the firm and ultimately the injured claimant. Checked the product material, the blog, the trust centre summary and the site navigation on 29 Aug 2026. Enterprise agreements govern this and are not public.

No published position located. Nothing was found on liability for AI output, warranty, service levels or remedy. The exposure is specific and asymmetric: an understated medical bill summation or a missed treatment event flows into a demand and can settle a claim below its value, and the person who bears that loss is the injured claimant, who is not a party to the contract between the firm and the vendor and has no visibility into how the number was produced. The vendor's own answer to this risk is operational, being human verification on high value cases, rather than contractual, and no contractual position is public. Checked the product pages, the demand letter page and the site navigation on 29 Aug 2026.

One substantive integration is named and the connections this buyer needs most are not. Named: Thomson Reuters and Westlaw integration supporting legal citation inside generated demand packages, which is a real and unusual integration for a plaintiff side drafting tool and gives the citation layer an established source. What was not located: any named case management system integration, which for a personal injury firm is the connection that matters, since the practice runs on a case management platform holding intake, treatment tracking and deadlines. No API or export documentation was located either, and nothing describes how records get in or how a finished demand returns to the matter file. Independent comparison material in this category treats case management integration as a primary evaluation criterion, which makes its absence from located vendor material notable. Checked the product material, the trust centre summary and the site navigation on 29 Aug 2026.

The integration story this category actually needs, and the gap that held EvenUp at C is closed here. Named case management systems: Litify, MyCase and CasePeer, which are the platforms plaintiff firms genuinely run on and where intake, treatment tracking, deadlines and the matter file already live. Named research integration: Westlaw Advantage through a strategic partnership with Thomson Reuters, giving generated documents an established legal citation source. Document management platform integration is stated at category level. The vendor's positioning is that the platform connects to a firm's case management, records and intake systems rather than replacing them, which is the correct posture for a firm that has already bought its system of record. Held at B rather than A because depth is undocumented: no statement of what moves in which direction with any named system, no authentication or permission detail, no API or export documentation located, and no indication of whether finished work product returns to the matter file automatically.

Nothing located. No hosting provider is named, no region or data residency commitment is published, and no single tenant or dedicated instance option is described. For a platform holding protected health information for injured claimants, the location and tenancy of that data is a question a firm's own compliance review would ask directly, and the HIPAA attestation establishes that safeguards were assessed without stating where the data sits. Checked the product material, the trust centre summary, the compliance announcements and the site navigation on 29 Aug 2026. Correction candidate: the Trust Center operates a request access route which was not entered in this pass and is the surface most likely to hold residency detail.

The first substantive residency disclosure in this category and one of very few in the pull. The vendor states data centres in the United States, the United Kingdom and Canada, which names three jurisdictions rather than gesturing at global availability, and pairs them with the matching regional health privacy regimes, HIPAA for the US and PHIPA for Canada, alongside GDPR. That combination indicates residency was designed against regulatory requirement rather than mentioned as a feature, and it answers the question a firm's compliance review asks first about a vendor holding claimant medical records. Held at B rather than A because the detail stops at the country list: no hosting provider is named, nothing states whether a customer can select or is guaranteed a region, no single tenant or dedicated instance option is described, and nothing addresses whether processing, backup and model inference all occur in the same jurisdiction as storage, which is where residency commitments usually leak.

Scope, currency and a self serve route, which is the combination this axis rewards. A dedicated Trust Center operates at trust.evenuplaw.com describing security, privacy and compliance practices and offering a request access route to available documentation, which under the three tier test is a request flow rather than a sales gate. The attestation is named with its scope stated: a SOC 2 Type 2 examination covering security, availability, confidentiality and privacy, four of the five Trust Services Criteria and materially broader than a security only scope. Currency is addressed and dated, with recertification announced April 2026 rather than an undated claim. Alongside it a HIPAA compliance assessment and attestation, independently conducted, which is the credential this product actually needs given it processes protected health information, and the vendor correctly explains that HIPAA has no formal certification and that what exists is a third party attestation, which is an accurate distinction most vendors blur. Held short of a perfect record on one point: the auditing firm is not named for either the SOC 2 or the HIPAA assessment. Consistent with Lexis+ AI at A on scope, currency and portal, and below Exterro, whose FedRAMP status is verifiable in a public registry without any request at all.

Four regimes named, none of them evidenced, and no route to the underlying documents. Stated: SOC 2 Type II certification with HIPAA, PHIPA and GDPR compliance. Naming four distinct regimes including a Canadian provincial health statute is a broader claim than most of this index makes and it aligns with the stated data centre geography, so the set is coherent rather than decorative. Held at B rather than A on the same absences that separate this tier from the top: no auditing firm named, no examination period, scope or certificate date published so currency cannot be established, and no trust centre, security page or self serve documentation request route was located. Under the three tier test the artifact is absent rather than gated. The contrast with EvenUp is the useful calibration point for this category: EvenUp reaches A on a Trust Center with a request route, a dated April 2026 recertification and a stated four criteria SOC 2 scope, and Supio names more regimes while evidencing none of them.

Nothing located. Piai is named and claimed as proprietary, trained on a personal injury specific dataset, and that is a statement about ownership rather than about supply chain. No foundation model provider is named, nothing states whether third party models sit underneath Piai or process any part of the pipeline, no subprocessor list was located, and the Thomson Reuters and Westlaw integration establishes at least one external data relationship without any accompanying disclosure of what flows to it. For a product handling protected health information, the identity of every party in the processing chain is a question a firm's HIPAA business associate review asks directly and it cannot be answered from public material. Checked the product material, the compliance announcements, the trust centre summary and the site navigation on 29 Aug 2026.

Nothing located. CaseAware AI is named and presented as the vendor's own technology, which is an ownership statement rather than a supply chain disclosure. No foundation model provider is named, nothing states whether third party models sit underneath CaseAware or process any part of the pipeline, and no subprocessor list was located. The Thomson Reuters and Westlaw Advantage integration establishes at least one external data relationship, and the stated three country data centre footprint implies infrastructure providers, and none of those parties is identified. For a platform processing protected health information across three regulatory regimes, the identity of every processor is a question a customer's HIPAA and PHIPA diligence asks directly and it cannot be answered from public material. Checked the product pages, the press page, the company material and the site navigation on 29 Aug 2026.

No pricing published at any level. Independent review material describes the model as case based rather than seat based, which is a meaningful structural fact for a plaintiff firm because cost then scales with caseload rather than headcount, and notes that the platform only earns its keep at sufficient injury volume. None of that comes from the vendor: no price, no range, no per case figure, no tier structure and no indication of what a demand package costs. Every route is a sales conversation and an annual contract. The absence is heavier in this category than most, because contingency fee firms carry case costs themselves and a per case charge is a direct deduction from a claimant's eventual recovery. Checked the product material, the pricing navigation and independent review material on 29 Aug 2026.

No pricing published at any level. No price, no range, no unit of charge, and no indication of whether the model is per case, per seat, per page of records processed or per demand produced, which matters because those scale very differently for a plaintiff firm and determine whether the cost is a case expense or firm overhead. Independent review notes the product is sold entirely behind a demo with no published pricing. Every route is a sales conversation. The absence carries the same additional weight noted on EvenUp: contingency fee firms advance case costs and recover them from a claimant's settlement, so undisclosed per case pricing is undisclosed cost to an injured person. Checked the product pages, the pricing navigation and independent review material on 29 Aug 2026.

Depth in one practice area, stated plainly, with the boundary acknowledged rather than obscured. The vendor is explicit that it builds for plaintiff side personal injury and nothing else, and independent review confirms it is not a general legal assistant. Within that scope the coverage is genuinely deep: police reports, medical records, billing statements, photographs and intake notes as inputs, demand letters, chronologies, case valuations, negotiation preparation and caseload analytics as outputs, and a settlement repository supporting jurisdictional comparables. Single practice specialisation is a design decision rather than a coverage failure and is credited as such. Held at B rather than A because the corpus behind the differentiator is not characterised: no statement of how many verdicts or settlements the repository holds, which jurisdictions it covers, what date range, how often it updates, or whether coverage is deep enough in a given venue for a comparable to carry weight, which is exactly what an attorney relying on that citation in negotiation needs to know.

Deliberately narrow scope, stated honestly, with genuine depth inside it and one dimension beyond the category norm. The vendor is explicit that the platform is built exclusively for plaintiff law and is of no use outside it, and independent review confirms the same. Within scope the coverage runs the full lifecycle rather than a single document: intake, medical chronologies, demand generation, case economics ledgers, litigation drafting, deposition analysis and firm level analytics, which is broader than EvenUp's demand centred product. Mass tort is named alongside personal injury, which is a materially different workload of thousands of claimants against common defendants and is not a given for vendors in this space. Held at B rather than A because coverage is not characterised at the level a buyer checks: no statement of which record types, providers or formats the ingestion handles, no jurisdictional scope for the litigation drafting, and no indication of practice depth in mass tort as distinct from single plaintiff work.

Silent. The quoted phrase is the stated scope of the SOC 2 Type 2 examination and it is the strongest data protection evidence on this record, but an examination of controls is not a statement of purpose: it establishes that safeguards over customer content were assessed, not what that content is used for. No statement was located in either direction on whether medical records, demand drafts, case files or settlement outcomes submitted by firms are used to train or improve Piai. The silence is conspicuous rather than ordinary here, because the vendor's central technical claim is a proprietary model trained on a large personal injury specific dataset and nothing published states where that dataset came from or whether customer matters continue to feed it. Recorded as silent, not as a negative commitment. Correction candidate: the Trust Center request access route was not entered in this pass. Checked the compliance announcements, the trust centre summary, the product material and the site navigation on 29 Aug 2026.

Silent. No vendor statement addressing model training was located to quote, so the quoted phrase is from the demand letter page and is included to show the level at which the vendor does describe its data handling, which is verification of output rather than use of input. Nothing was located in either direction on whether medical records, case files, demand drafts or deposition transcripts submitted by firms are used to train or improve CaseAware. Compliance with SOC 2 Type II, HIPAA, PHIPA and GDPR is stated and describes how data is protected rather than what it is used for. The gap has a third party dimension specific to this category: the health information belongs to an injured claimant who is not a party to the contract between firm and vendor, so a training use they cannot see or object to is a different question from a customer consenting on their own behalf. Recorded as silent, not as a negative commitment. Checked the product pages, the demand letter page, the press page and the site navigation on 29 Aug 2026.

Not addressed. No retention period is published for uploaded medical records, generated chronologies, demand drafts or case valuations, and nothing indicates whether a firm can require deletion at matter close. Retention has a statutory dimension on this product that it does not have elsewhere on the index: the content is protected health information belonging to a third party claimant, and HIPAA safeguards address how it is protected rather than how long a business associate keeps it. Nothing published closes that. Checked the trust centre summary, the compliance announcements, the product material and the site navigation on 29 Aug 2026.

Not addressed. No retention period is published for ingested medical records, generated chronologies, demand drafts, case economics ledgers or agent instructions, and nothing indicates whether a firm can require deletion at matter close or settlement. Stated GDPR compliance implies erasure machinery exists for personal data, and nothing published describes how it operates for claimant health records held on a customer's behalf. Checked the product pages, the press page and the site navigation on 29 Aug 2026.

Not addressed. No permission model, matter level access restriction or tenant segregation description was located. The question has an unusual edge on this product: the settlement repository is a shared benchmarking asset drawn from past outcomes, and nothing published describes the boundary between one firm's case data and the pooled comparables sold to every other firm, including opposing firms working the same venues. A plaintiff firm's settlement history is competitively sensitive as well as confidential. No document management system integration exists to inherit permissions from. Checked the product material, the trust centre summary and the site navigation on 29 Aug 2026.

Not addressed. No permission model, matter level access restriction or tenant segregation description was located. The mass tort dimension makes this sharper than for a single plaintiff product: a mass tort workload involves thousands of claimants against common defendants, often with multiple firms coordinating, and nothing published describes how one firm's claimant records and work product are separated from another's inside a platform serving the same litigation from both sides of a co counsel arrangement. Integrations exist with case management systems that hold their own permission models, and nothing states whether Supio inherits them. Checked the product pages and the site navigation on 29 Aug 2026.

Not addressed. No government or law enforcement request clause, no commitment to notify a customer before producing their data, and no transparency report were located. The stakes are higher than the usual case because the vendor holds protected health information and unfiled demand material for claimants in active disputes, and a subpoena to the vendor rather than the firm would reach work product the firm would otherwise resist producing. Checked the trust centre summary, the compliance announcements and the site navigation on 29 Aug 2026.

Not addressed. No government or law enforcement request clause, no commitment to notify a customer before producing their data, and no transparency report were located. The stakes mirror EvenUp and extend further: the vendor holds claimant protected health information, unsent demand material and litigation drafts across three jurisdictions with different legal process regimes, and a request served in one country against data stored there is not the same event as one served on the firm. Nothing published addresses any of it. Checked the product pages, the press page and the site navigation on 29 Aug 2026.

Named without a licence basis, and the named corpus is the product's differentiator. The Settlement Repository is described as a database of past settlements used for benchmarking and case valuation, and comparable verdicts from it are cited directly inside demand packages, so the corpus is not background infrastructure but the substance of the argument sent to an insurer. What is absent is everything a practitioner relying on that citation would check: no count of verdicts or settlements held, no jurisdictional coverage, no date range, no update frequency, and no statement of the basis on which the outcomes were obtained, whether public court records, customer contributed results, or licensed data. Piai is separately claimed as trained on a large personal injury specific dataset whose provenance is also unstated. Two corpora, both central, neither sourced.

Not addressed, and largely inapplicable in the usual sense with one live residue. The platform operates on the customer's own case files, medical records and transcripts rather than on a published law corpus, so there is no external legal source to name or license, and legal authority reaches the product through the Westlaw Advantage integration whose corpus is Thomson Reuters' rather than the vendor's. The unanswered residue is what CaseAware itself was trained on: distinguishing facts from opinions across clinical documentation implies a substantial corpus of medical records, and nothing published states whether that corpus was licensed, synthetic, publicly sourced or built from customer matters. Unlike EvenUp, no settlement or verdict repository is named as a separate asset. Checked the product pages, the press page and the site navigation on 29 Aug 2026.

Not addressed. The product does cite legal authority, through a Thomson Reuters and Westlaw integration supporting citation inside demand packages, so unlike TrialView or Exterro this signal is applicable rather than a scope fact. Nothing published indicates whether cited authority is checked for current treatment, whether an overruled or superseded case would be flagged before it reaches a demand letter, or whether the Westlaw integration includes KeyCite treatment data or only citation retrieval. Comparable verdicts drawn from the settlement repository are outcomes rather than authority and carry no treatment question, but the legal citations in a demand do. Checked the product material, the integration references and the site navigation on 29 Aug 2026.

Not addressed, and applicable rather than a scope fact. The product generates litigation drafts and integrates Westlaw Advantage for legal research, so legal authority does reach its output and a currency question genuinely arises. Nothing published states whether cited authority is checked for current treatment before it appears in a draft, whether the Westlaw integration carries KeyCite treatment data or only citation retrieval, or whether an overruled or superseded case would be flagged. Second record in this category where this signal is live, after EvenUp, and both leave it unanswered while integrating the same research provider. Checked the product pages, the press page and the integration references on 29 Aug 2026.

Not addressed. Nothing published describes an explicit no answer path, abstention behaviour or confidence signal. The gap is specific to medical record work: records arrive illegible, contradictory, incomplete or out of order as a matter of routine, and nothing states whether the system flags a gap in the treatment timeline, marks a low confidence extraction, or silently produces a clean looking chronology from an incomplete file. Independent material notes that missed items and misinterpretations occur in complex cases with extensive treatment histories, which confirms the failure mode exists without the vendor describing how it is surfaced. A chronology that looks complete and is not is the most dangerous output this product can produce. Checked the product material, the trust centre summary and the site navigation on 29 Aug 2026.

Not addressed. Nothing published describes an explicit no answer path, abstention behaviour or confidence signal. CaseAware is named for distinguishing facts from opinions in medical records, which is a discrimination capability rather than an uncertainty behaviour, and nothing states what happens when a record is illegible, when two providers document contradictory findings, or when a treatment gap cannot be explained from the file. The human verification tier on high value cases is an external check applied after generation rather than a described behaviour of the system under uncertainty, and it does not apply to every case. A chronology that reads as complete over an incomplete record is the dangerous output in this category, and nothing published indicates it would be flagged. Checked the product pages, the demand letter page and the site navigation on 29 Aug 2026.

None located, with the instrument named. General web searches combining the vendor and product names with court, order, sanction, fabricated citation and demand letter terms returned nothing on 29 Aug 2026, and no named docket database or court record tracker was searched. Recorded as a statement about what this search found and not as a clearance. Worth flagging the exposure shape for a later pass with a proper docket instrument: this product generates documents citing both legal authority and comparable verdicts, sent to adverse parties, so both a fabricated case and a fabricated or misdescribed comparable would be discoverable in the record if either had occurred.

None located, with the instrument named. General web searches combining the vendor and product names with court, order, sanction, fabricated citation and demand letter terms returned nothing on 29 Aug 2026, and no named docket database or court record tracker was searched. Recorded as a statement about what this search found and not as a clearance. The exposure shape is broader than for a demand only product because Supio also generates litigation drafts, which are filed with courts rather than sent to insurers, so a defective citation in that output would reach a docket directly. Flagged as worth a proper docket search on a later pass.

Not addressed. No named ethics opinion, no ABA Formal Opinion 512, no state bar guidance and no engagement with professional conduct rules was located. The relevance is direct rather than theoretical: the product drafts the advocacy document a firm sends under its own name and generates the valuation informing settlement advice to a client, both of which sit squarely inside the competence and supervision duties bar guidance on AI addresses. Checked the product material, the blog, the trust centre summary and the site navigation on 29 Aug 2026.

Not addressed. No named ethics opinion, no ABA Formal Opinion 512, no state bar guidance and no engagement with professional conduct rules was located. Relevance is direct: the platform produces litigation drafts filed under an attorney's signature and case economics that inform settlement advice, both of which sit inside the competence, candour and supervision duties that bar guidance on AI addresses. Checked the product pages, the press page, the company material and the site navigation on 29 Aug 2026.

Not addressed, and the omission carries more weight in this category than any other on the index. Personal injury work is contingency fee work: the firm advances case costs and recovers them from the claimant's settlement, so a per case charge for AI generated demand packages is money that comes out of an injured person's recovery. Nothing published addresses whether the platform's per case cost is treated as a case expense or firm overhead, how it should be disclosed to a client, or what record a firm could produce showing what portion of a demand was machine generated. Reported time savings of 80 hours per case describe the firm's side of the equation only. Checked the product material, the pricing navigation and independent review material on 29 Aug 2026.

Savings claims only. The published figure is 80 plus hours saved per case when combining AI chronologies with demand generation, which describes the firm's own labour and carries no baseline, sample or definition, and independent material reporting it notes that most benchmarks in this category come from vendor marketing. Nothing appears on the claimant's side of the equation, and in contingency work that side is the one that matters: the firm advances case costs and recovers them from the settlement, so nothing published addresses whether platform cost is treated as a case expense or firm overhead, how it is disclosed to the client, or what record a firm could produce showing what portion of a demand was machine generated. Checked the product pages, the demand letter page and independent review material on 29 Aug 2026.

On request, through a real route with the credential this buyer actually needs. The Trust Center at trust.evenuplaw.com offers a request access path to available documentation, and behind it sit a SOC 2 Type 2 examination scoped to security, availability, confidentiality and privacy, recertified April 2026, and a HIPAA compliance attestation. For a plaintiff firm that must satisfy itself about a business associate handling claimant protected health information, that is the pack the diligence actually calls for and there is a defined place to request it. Held at on request rather than higher because nothing is published open: no subprocessor list, no named model provider, no downloadable summary and no business associate agreement template were located outside the gate, and the gate itself was not entered in this pass so the contents are unverified.

Not addressed. Four compliance regimes are named, being SOC 2 Type II, HIPAA, PHIPA and GDPR, alongside stated data centre locations, which is real citable content for a firm answering a client questionnaire. No route to anything underneath it was located: no trust centre, no security page, no request path for the SOC 2 report, no subprocessor list, no named model provider and no business associate agreement material. A firm could repeat the vendor's claims and could not evidence them or answer which third parties process claimant health data. Recorded as not addressed because a claims list without a request route is not a disclosure pack, which is the distinction that separates this record from EvenUp at on request. Checked the product pages, the press page and the site navigation on 29 Aug 2026.

Partial record, strong on the source trail and silent on the machine's own involvement. Medical chronologies carry citations back to source documents so any entry can be verified against the underlying record, and demand packages cite comparable verdicts from the settlement repository, so a firm can show what a factual assertion or a valuation argument rests on. That is the sources retrieved limb answered properly. The other two limbs are absent: nothing indicates that output records which model generated it, and no human verification record is captured, including for the expert reviewed tier where an in house team demonstrably does check the document before delivery and no artifact of that check appears to reach the customer. A demand package is a pre litigation document, so the forum here is a claim file or a subsequent suit rather than a standing order, and the same question applies in either.

Partial record, and the strongest source trail in this category. Citations are page level back to the source document for any claim made, so a party can point to the exact page of a medical record behind a factual assertion in a demand or a litigation draft, which is finer resolution than document level citation and is what an opposing party or a court would actually test. For high value cases human experts verify bill summations and damage calculations, so a verification step demonstrably occurs. The gaps are the familiar two: nothing indicates that output records which model generated it, and no artifact of the human verification reaches the customer, so a firm cannot evidence that the check happened even where it did. Litigation drafts make this live in a courtroom rather than only in a claim file.