Design
From statute to a released process, in days.
Give ai4bp the law and your practice sheet. It drafts the process, you fix what two checklists find, and release stays locked until nothing blocks it.
The law and your sheet
Connectors
- ✓Reading the Westland Lemon Law: 23 clauses
- ✓Reading Harbor Legal's practice sheet: 10 lines
- ✓Drafting the process: 8 steps
- ✓Drafting the rules: 11 rules
- ✓Drafting the deadlines: 6 deadlines
- ✓Drafting the letters: 5 letter templates
- ◐Wiring the connectors: 9 automation points
- ○Linked 19 clauses to steps, rules and checks; the 4 definitions are proposed as guidance only, for the control owner
The law
Upload the statute, regulations and internal policies, or describe your product in plain words. The AI finds each clause and keeps its number.
Your practice sheet
Each line becomes something the draft is checked against, so a line the law contradicts is caught before anything runs.
Your connectors
Documents (Vyxlo), email, calendar and e-signature are MCP servers. MCP is a standard way for a program to offer its tools to an AI. The released package's approved action menu decides which of those tools a step may call, and ai4bp's gateway enforces it.
The process
See the whole process, then open any step.
The draft is also a picture. Lanes show who acts: the paralegal, the lawyer, the AI and the connectors. In the demo, pick a step, a rule, a deadline or a letter, and its details appear beside it. You can look and select; a change goes through review and becomes a new version.
Legend
- Start event a case begins
- End event Closed or Declined
- User task a person does the step
- AI task the AI proposes, a person approves
- Service task a tool call through the gate
- Gateway a rule picks one way
- Timer a deadline on the step
- Message a letter, or the manufacturer’s reply
- Sequence flow the order of the work
- Message flow to or from the manufacturer
- Tool call a step uses a service task
A lane shows who acts. It gives no authority: AI tasks propose, people approve.
1 / The draft
A draft you can read, not a diagram to wire.
The AI drafts the package: 8 steps and who owns each, 11 rules, 6 deadlines, 5 letter templates and 9 automation points, each linked to its clause. Everything is a table or a document a designer can read and edit.
- ▤Review
- ◇Process
- ☰Rules
- ◷Deadlines
- ✉Templates
- ⇄Automation
- ◎Tests
Process: 8 steps
- IntakeFee agreement signed WLL §2Paralegal
- Collect documentsA repair order for every visit WLL §4(a) WLL §4(b)Paralegal
- Decide eligibilityPresumption result recorded WLL §3(a)Paralegal, then Maya
- Send written noticeLawyer approval of the exact letter WLL §5(a)Maya (lawyer)
- Final repair attemptWindow end date on the calendar WLL §6(b)Paralegal
- Arbitration or demandClient's choice recorded WLL §7(a)Maya (lawyer)
- Settlement or suitRemedy chosen by the client WLL §8(a)Maya (lawyer)
- CloseFile archived WLL §10Paralegal
Deadlines: 6
Letter templates: 5
A lawyer approves each one before it goes.
Rule is_lemon: is the vehicle presumed a lemon?
| When | Then | Clause |
|---|---|---|
| Same defect repaired 3 or more times | Presumed lemon | WLL §3(a) |
| 30 or more days out of service in total | Presumed lemon | WLL §3(b) |
| Serious safety defect repaired 2 or more times | Presumed lemon | WLL §3(c) |
| None of the above | Not yet presumed: keep collecting repair orders | WLL §3(a) |
1 of 11 rules shown. Each row cites its clause.
Every call to a connected tool shows its JSON.
Where a step uses a tool, the draft lists the call with the data going in and the result coming out, so a lawyer or a developer sees exactly what can be sent. The checks around the call are part of the draft too.
{
"to": ["{{manufacturer.notice_address}}"],
"template": "t1",
"attachments": ["{{repair_orders.files}}"]
}
- –On the approved action menuat run time
- –Rulesat run time
- –Recipient, WLL §5(a)at run time
- –Approval, lawyerat run time
- –Sent, then verifiedat run time
{
"message_id": "msg-0002",
"status": "sent",
"verified": true
}
The 9 automation points call these 6 tools
2 / Review
Two checklists, one question each.
First: does the draft match your design? Then: is it regulated and compliant? Every problem row carries the AI's proposed fix and the person who decides it.
- ▤Review
- ◇Process
- ☰Rules
- ⇄Automation
- ◎Tests
Accept vehicles up to 24 months old.
Conflict with WLL §2. Rule in_period, built from the statute.
Change the sheet to 18 months or 18,000 miles from delivery, whichever comes first. A client at 20 months could not use WLL §2, so accepting them would only raise hopes.
Ask for an exception: not available, statutory clause.
Collect every repair order before sending notice.
Step 2, Collect documents, a needs line on step 4
Chase the client for missing documents every 3 business days.
Deadline d5
A lawyer approves every notice and client message before it goes.
Steps 4 and 6, approval by lawyer
Chase the dealer every 5 business days after a repair-order request.
Not on your sheet: deadline d2. AI's reason: WLL §4(b) gives a dealer 5 business days to supply copies. Your sheet says when to chase the client but not the dealer, so without this the request could sit unanswered.
Keep the follow-up as a calendar task, or remove it. The AI cannot keep it without your decision.
WLL §2 Cover only a nonconformity first reported within 18 months or 18,000 miles
Rule in_period, 2 test clients, waiting for Lena
WLL §3(a) Presume a lemon after 3 repair attempts for the same defect
Rules same_defect and is_lemon, 1 test client, waiting for Lena
WLL §5(a) Notice goes to the manufacturer's designated address
Rule notice_recipient, outbound gate, 1 test client, waiting for Lena
WLL §7(a) Tell the consumer about the state arbitration program
Mentioned in template t5. Nothing checks it was sent.
Add a check to step 6: before any demand goes out, the case must show that the client was told about the arbitration program, with the date and who told them.
A new check is a control, so the control owner approves it.
WLL §5(c) Notice states the consumer's choice of refund or replacement
Nothing yet: template t1 has the defect and the history only.
Add one sentence to the notice template, and have the outbound gate test that the letter has all three statements §5(c) lists: the defect, the repair history and the client's choice. The gate check is a new control, so the control owner approves it.
Release is locked. 4 items to resolve: the conflict, the AI addition, the referenced-only clause and the missing clause.
Omar, the designer, decides the design.
Changing the sheet, routing around a conflict, keeping or removing something the AI added. He can see the AI's reason for each addition, and the AI never adds a product term on its own.
Lena, the control owner, approves every control.
Anything that adds, weakens or bypasses a rule, a clause check or a statutory deadline needs her as well. No approval is ever made by the AI alone.
No row that was already approved has changed. Both checklists run again on v0.5.
3 / Changing a draft
Three ways in. One diff, one new version.
Every way of changing a draft produces a proposed diff and a new version, and both checklists run again.
- Edit steps, rule tables and templates directly.
- Ask the AI in plain words.
- Change the practice sheet and redraft.
A redraft never changes a row that was already approved, unless the diff shows that row and the designer approves it again. Designers edit things they can read. They never wire nodes or draw BPMN.
4 / Evidence
Simulation is the evidence, not a separate place to look.
“Tested” on a clause opens the test clients behind it: the facts, the outcome expected and the clauses each one exercises, with the connectors mocked.
What each test client checks in the draft
| Test client | Facts | Expected | Clauses | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Test client T-01 | 2025 Norvik Atlas, first reported at 7 months. 3 repairs for the same transmission fault. | Eligible: presumed lemon under WLL §3(a) | §3(a) | ✓approved |
| Test client T-02 | 2024 Kestrel Ridge. 2 repairs for an air-conditioning fault, 31 days out of service in total. | Eligible: presumed lemon under WLL §3(b) | §3(b) | ✓approved |
| Test client T-03 | 2025 Halvane Orion. 2 repairs for a brake failure, which is a serious safety defect. | Eligible: presumed lemon under WLL §3(c) | §3(c) §1(d) | ✓approved |
| Test client T-04 | Defect first reported at 19 months, at 8,000 miles. | Not covered: over 18 months | §2 | ✓approved |
| Test client T-05 | Defect first reported at 10 months, at 18,900 miles. | Not covered: over 18,000 miles | §2 | ✓approved |
| Test client T-06 | Notice letter addressed to the dealer's service desk only. | Held at the gate: not the designated address | §5(a) | ✓approved |
| Test client T-07 | Dealer has not sent repair orders 6 business days after our request. | Dealer chased, and again every 5 business days | §4(b) | ✓approved |
| Test client T-08 | Notice reached the manufacturer on 11 Nov. No written response by 25 Nov. | Alert to Maya on 26 Nov: no response within 14 days | §6(a) | ✓approved |
Tested on 8 clients. Approved by Lena, 11 Nov 2026. The AI would otherwise be testing its own reading of the clause.
A lawyer-curated test set in the pack counts the same way: once the deployment's control owner has accepted it.
5 / Release
Locked until nothing blocks. Then v1.0.
Release stays locked while a clause conflicts, is missing or is only referenced, or while an AI addition has no decision. Each item clears with a fix, or with its owner signing an exception. The four fixes make v0.2, v0.3, v0.4 and v0.5. Release also waits until the control owner approves the test set behind “tested”, and then v1.0 is released.
1 item to resolve
- ✓No conflict with a clausepass
- ✓Every AI addition decidedpass
- ✓No clause only referencedpass
- ‖No clause missing: WLL §5(c)held
- ◐Tests approved by the control ownerwaiting
- ◐Every control carries Lena's approvalwaiting
Omar can release only when every control in the package carries Lena's approval and she has approved the test set.
v1.0 released
- ✓No conflict with a clausepass
- ✓Every AI addition decidedpass
- ✓No clause only referencedpass
- ✓No clause missingpass
- ✓Tests approved by the control ownerpass
- ✓Every control carries Lena's approvalpass
19 of 19 clauses enforced; the 4 definitions are guidance only. Tested on 8 clients. Compliance can see which clause is enforced where.
- The AI can stop, but cannot release. Only an exact rule or a person lets anything through.
- New situations, never new powers. The released package is the only authority the AI works within.
- Every change after release arrives as a proposed new version, on this same review screen.
Try it
Review a draft yourself.
Open the lemon-law draft, resolve the four items, let Lena approve the tests, and watch release unlock.