Improve follow-up research continuation without misleading context
Iterative research often needs continuity without quietly turning earlier assumptions into constraints.
A useful thread can preserve momentum while an overly persistent one can narrow the next question too soon.
“Sometimes I need the last answer in my head; sometimes I need it completely out.”
Ingrid Bakker · Employment Law Partner
Builds evolving research threads while refining client advice across changing fact patterns.
What pulls against what
- continuity vs. fresh reasoning
- behavioral telemetry vs. lawyer intent
- rapid learning vs. citation-quality safeguards
- automatic context vs. user control
What is at stake
The visible drop-off has several plausible causes. The work is to find a reversible technical path that improves continuity without contaminating legal reasoning
Why Harvey
At Harvey, this can matter because research work often develops through successive questions rather than a single prompt.
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.