Four views of one case file, built from the same set of facts.
Each view reads from the same structured matter record. Link a document to an event and the timeline, evidence checklist, and related follow-up work can reflect the same update.
What the record surfaces
Illustrative
- Timeline
- Evidence
- Conflicts
- Tasks
What your team works in.
Each view is the same matter seen through the question a particular role is trying to answer.
A fact graph, not a folder of notes.
Client answers stored only as flat notes are hard to search, compare, review, and export. MatterGraph proposes connected records so the team can trace facts back to their sources.
That structure makes a missing document visible when a fact lacks support and makes a conflict visible when two sources describe the same event differently.
- A person participated in an event
- A document supports, contradicts, or mentions an event
- An event supports a claim, and a claim depends on evidence
- A question clarifies an event; an answer creates one
- A task requests the document that would close the gap
Node types
The graph powers the system. It is not the interface. Each role gets the view that matches their work, not a network diagram to untangle.
How a fact earns its place in the file.
Client stated
Someone said it happened.
Document supported
A record backs it up.
Witness supported
Another person confirms it.
Attorney confirmed
Reviewed and signed off.
A statement from a client is not the same thing as a statement corroborated by a police report, and neither is the same as a fact an attorney has reviewed and confirmed. MatterGraph keeps that distinction on the record instead of flattening it.
That means an attorney opening a matter can see at a glance which parts of the story are documented, which rest on one person’s recollection, and which are still contested.
Drafts, not decisions
Extracted events, generated questions, review flags, and draft summaries remain suggestions. MatterGraph organizes facts; it does not provide legal advice or determine legal merit. The firm controls review and final use.
Where this leads next.
Test the workflow on a representative matter.
Start with a synthetic or fully redacted matter. An initial evaluation does not require live client data.