The authorization review turns on whether usable citation verification can coexist with auditable access controls.
Agency counsel needs a live-matter workflow, while the security office protects the evidence required to authorize it.
Who you’d be doing this for
“I’ve got the authorities open, but I still need a record I can stand behind.”
Fatemeh Saleh · Agency Attorney
A pilot user preparing research for an active agency matter under the proposed authorization boundary.
What is at stake
The agency has 21 days to show complete verification and audit evidence across 30 research outputs. You must weigh a workable legal-research flow against the access controls needed for authorization.
Why it isn’t already fixed
Every obvious fix costs something else. That’s the part you’d have to decide.
- live-matter usefulness vs. authorization evidence
- attorney verification vs. narrow access boundaries
- pilot date vs. complete auditability
- reusable deployment pattern vs. agency-specific constraints
Why Harvey
Citation-grounded legal research in a FedRAMP High environment must give agency attorneys usable sources and security reviewers defensible records.
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.