Lawgame v1
Dominant legal strategy - via unsupservised learning - modeled as a directed acyclic graph.
This whitepaper outlines the Lawgame architecture and vision. It explores the verification of dominant strategies against Nash Equilibria in adversarial legal environments, and the generation of asymmetric - but technically valid - legal strategies.
Scroll down for whitepaper sections.
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY & INTRODUCTION
Start here. This section opens with a great test case — a $200M False Claims Act prosecution that ends in total dismissal — then explains what Lawgame is, what makes it architecturally novel, and why nothing like it currently exists in the legal technology market. It covers the commercial model, the democratisation imperative, and the competitive landscape in full.
SYSTEM ARCHITECTURE & TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS
The engineering behind the results. This section details how the three-agent decision triad works, how the Innovation Lab generates asymmetric strategies, how the system learns from failure without labelled training data, and how air-gapped deployment makes adoption possible for even the most data-sensitive firms. For readers who want to understand the machine.
THE THREE DOMAINS OF LITIGATION WE TESTED
Lawgame was tested across three structurally different legal environments: commercial disputes between sophisticated parties, regulatory enforcement by the state, and appellate strategy where facts are fixed and only argument remains. This section frames each domain and explains why each tests a different dimension of the system's capability.
CASE STUDIES
Nine test cases. Nine realistic legal problems. This section documents every simulation — what was at stake, what the system tried, what failed, what worked, and what it found that experienced practitioners had missed. Read one case or all nine; each stands alone.
THE INNOVATION: GENERATING ASYMMETRIC STRATEGY
The Innovation Lab produces arguments no conventional legal analysis would reach. This section catalogues the most striking outputs across all nine cases — organised by strategic type: logical annihilation, cross-disciplinary synthesis, ontological reframing, procedural flanking, and information asymmetry exploitation. It also addresses the Lab's failures honestly, and explains why they are a feature rather than a flaw.
EMERGENT SYSTEM BEHAVIOURS & GENERALIZABLE INSIGHTS
What the simulations revealed that wasn't designed in. The system discovered recurring structural vulnerabilities in how law operates — patterns that now generalise beyond any individual case. This section documents those discoveries: the Transparency Trap, the Materiality Trap, how procedural leverage repeatedly outperformed substantive argument, and what strategic failure, properly analysed, is worth.
STRATEGIC POSITIONING & DEVELOPMENT ROADMAP
Where Lawgame sits relative to human counsel — not as a replacement but as a complement — and where it is going. This section addresses the honest comparison between AI-assisted strategy and unassisted human judgment, then sets out the development trajectory from v1 through the fine-tuning data moat, settlement simulation, jury trial modelling, and beyond.
LIMITATIONS, RISKS, AND ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS
A whitepaper that doesn't address its own risks isn't worth reading. This section covers accuracy limitations in novel doctrine, misuse scenarios, the explainability problem, regulatory uncertainty, and the structural risk that Lawgame deepens rather than reduces legal inequality — together with the specific mitigations planned for each.
CONCLUSION: THE STRATEGIC SHIFT
The core innovation restated, the why-now moment explained, and a direct address to each audience — law firms, legal aid organisations, investors, and policymakers. Short, direct, and clear about what the technology exists to do and who decides whether it fulfils that purpose.
APPENDICES AND REFERENCE MATERIALS
Reference material for readers who want to go deeper. Includes a full glossary of Lawgame-specific terminology, three summary tables covering all nine case outcomes and every Innovation Lab strategy generated, a curated reading list across game theory, legal prediction, litigation strategy, and appellate advocacy, and the future research agenda for academics and institutional partners.