Establish safe-use signals for sanctions research
Compliance questions often appear first as inconsistent signals rather than clearly defined failures.
Teams may agree that a risk matters while disagreeing on whether the gap is guidance, evidence, workflow, or expectation.
“I don’t need a blanket warning—I need to know when the answer stops being safe to rely on.”
Rikke Nilsson · International Trade Counsel
Advises a corporate legal department on sanctions and export-control issues across cross-border transactions.
What pulls against what
- early caution vs. premature restriction
- customer assurance vs. unsettled evidence
- specialist escalation vs. usable guidance
- broad policy vs. testable intervention
What is at stake
The signals are real but point to different root problems. A well-chosen, reversible test can clarify how lawyers should recognize and escalate sensitive use cases
Why Harvey
At Harvey, this can matter where source-grounded work is used across jurisdictions with different risk tolerances.
Written for
This is the setup. The work is inside.
Running it puts you in the room: the full situation and its constraints, stakeholders who push back in their own words, and the decisions that are yours to make. What you produce becomes a Day One Plan — work you can show someone instead of describing.