Citation-verification feedback is recurring, but its meaning changes when the source evidence disappears.
The Product Manager team needs faster signal synthesis while preserving the lawyer comments that show whether a theme is real.
Who you’d be doing this for
“I flagged the same citation issue twice this month, and nobody could tell me if other teams saw it too.”
Adele Meijer · Senior Associate
A lawyer at an enterprise law firm who relies on source-linked research and drafts but must personally verify citations before work reaches a client or court.
What is at stake
Feedback about citation review keeps arriving as disconnected comments, so recurring problems are easy to mistake for one-offs. You must weigh faster synthesis against the evidence a PM needs to trust before framing a product problem.
Why it isn’t already fixed
Every obvious fix costs something else. That’s the part you’d have to decide.
- faster feedback synthesis vs source-level inspection
- recurring volume vs legal consequence
- AI grouping vs PM judgment
- pilot speed vs durable operation
Why Harvey
Harvey’s citation-grounded drafting and research experience depends on making legal professionals able to inspect supporting evidence before relying on generated work.
Written with these in mind
Not your kind of problem? 43 more at Harvey, or browse every organization.
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.