Improve
Your exceptions become your process.
ai4bp counts the exceptions your people resolve by hand and drafts a branch for the repeats. When the law changes, it finds the rules and open cases that change with it. Nothing goes live until the owner approves a new version.
| Gap | Closed cases | Staff hours | Clause | Next |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dealer won't release repair ordersDealer silent after the 5 business days; paralegals phoned and re-sent by hand. | 14 | 31 | WLL §4(b) | ✦branch proposed |
| Manufacturer offers cash-and-keepOffer arrives by email; Maya compares it with the refund and calls the client. | 6 | 14 | WLL §8(a) | no branch yet |
| Repair orders disagree on mileageTwo orders show different odometer readings; a paralegal checks the dealer's records. | 9 | 11 | WLL §2 | no branch yet |
| Client sold or traded the vehicleThe sale price changes the refund; Maya sets the figure case by case. | 4 | 7 | WLL §8(a) | no branch yet |
One gap has a branch proposed. Open it to see the replay on past cases.
From the bottom up
When the same exception keeps being resolved the same way, the AI drafts a designed branch for it. Approved, it runs as plain rules, so the AI is called less as volume grows.
From the top down
When a law changes, the AI maps the changed clause to the rules, letters and open cases it touches, and drafts the changes.
Through the same door
Both arrive as a proposed new version on the two-checklist review screen you already know, and are released the same way.
1 / From the bottom up
A repeated exception becomes a proposed branch.
In 14 closed cases the dealer would not release repair orders, and people chased by hand: 31 hours. The AI drafts a branch for it, then replays that branch on those 14 cases before anyone is asked to approve.
- It cites the clause behind it, WLL §4(b).
- It is a proposed version, v1.1. Running cases do not change until it is approved.
- The replay says how many past cases it matched, and why the others differ.
Dealer won't release repair orders WLL §4(b)
When: no copies 5 business days after our request.
- Day 5: send the dealer a written reminder that cites WLL §4(b).
- Day 8, still nothing: Maya reviews and approves a formal demand for the copies.
- Put each chase date on the calendar, and tell the client the file is waiting on the dealer.
- ≠LL-1998: the dealer had closed, so staff wrote to the manufacturer's regional office. The branch has no step for that.It needs a condition that sends the request to the manufacturer instead.
- ≠LL-2012: Maya sent a demand on day 4 because the client was 2 weeks from the 18-month limit in WLL §2. The branch waits the full 5 days.When the WLL §2 period is about to end, Maya has to be able to act sooner.
This branch adds no control, so the designer approves it.
Evidence
The replay shows its work.
Each past case is set beside what the branch would have done. The two that differ say why, so the owner can fix the branch before approving it, or decide the difference is fine. The replay checks the branch against what people did on the cases it came from. It is not a forecast.
| Past case | What people did | What the branch would do | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| LL-1962Jan 2026 | Phoned the dealer on day 6. Copies arrived on day 8. | Written reminder on day 5. Copies by day 8. | ✓match |
| LL-1975Feb 2026 | Maya sent a formal demand on day 9. Copies arrived on day 11. | Demand drafted on day 8 for Maya. Copies by day 11. | ✓match |
| LL-2003Apr 2026 | Maya sent a formal demand on day 8. Copies arrived on day 10. | Demand on day 8 after Maya's approval. Copies by day 10. | ✓match |
| LL-1998Mar 2026 | Dealer had closed. Wrote to the manufacturer's regional office on day 5. | Reminder to the dealer on day 5, then a demand on day 8.The branch has no step for a dealer that has closed. It needs a condition that sends the request to the manufacturer instead. | ≠differs |
| LL-2012May 2026 | Maya sent a demand on day 4 because the client was 2 weeks from the 18-month limit in WLL §2. | Waits until day 5 for the reminder and day 8 for the demand.The branch waits the full 5 days. When the WLL §2 period is about to end, Maya has to be able to act sooner. | ≠differs |
12 of 14 matched what people did. 9 more matched cases are not shown. Both differences are open for the designer to decide.
2 / The same review
A new version, reviewed like v1.0.
The branch arrives on the same two-checklist screen, as a diff against the released version. v1.0 stays in use until the owner approves v1.1.
- ▤Review
- ◇Process
- ☰Rules
- ⇄Connectors
- ◎Tests
Both checklists run again on v1.1. The branch adds no control.
A branch that adds no control, like this one, needs the designer only. A branch that added, weakened or bypassed a control would need the control owner as well, and a rule or control is never changed by the AI alone.
Westland amended WLL §6(b): the final repair attempt window changes from 10 to 14 days.
Published 10 Nov 2026, effective 12 Nov 2026. It applies to final repair attempts that are not completed by 12 Nov 2026.
Deadline d4 is a statutory deadline, so this touches a control. Lena approves the rule change, and Omar, the designer, releases v1.2.
3 / From the top down
A changed law finds its rules and its cases.
When Westland amended WLL §6(b), the AI read the amendment and found what it touches: a rule, a deadline, a letter template and a calendar automation. It drafted each change and listed the open cases affected.
- Everything the amendment touches is one proposed version, v1.2.
- A statutory deadline is a control, so the control owner approves the change and the designer releases v1.2.
- Nothing changes in a running case until then.
Nine open cases, and what changes for each.
The impact is worked out before anyone approves, so the owner sees which dates move now and which cases only pick up the new window later.
| Case | Step | Effect | When |
|---|---|---|---|
| LL-2040Hannah Brandt | Final repair attempt | The window is already running. Its end moves from 14 Nov to 18 Nov, and the client is told. | ◆dates move |
| LL-2038Elias Moreau | Final repair attempt | The window is already running. Its end moves from 19 Nov to 23 Nov, and the client is told. | ◆dates move |
| LL-2047Dana Ruiz | Send written notice | Norvik has not asked for a final attempt. If it does, the window will be 14 days, not 10. | ○applies later |
| LL-2043Tomas Reyes | Send written notice | Halvane's response is still due on 16 Nov, unchanged. A final attempt would get 14 days. | ○applies later |
| LL-2051Sam Okafor | Collect documents | No change now. The case calendar will use 14 days when it reaches step 5. | ○applies later |
| LL-2052Carla Vasquez | Collect documents | No change now. The new template t4 text applies if a final attempt is asked for. | ○applies later |
| LL-2049Priya Lindqvist | Decide eligibility | No change now. If the case is eligible, the final attempt window will be 14 days. | ○applies later |
| LL-2050Ravi Anand | Decide eligibility | No change now. The eligibility result does not depend on §6(b). | ○applies later |
| LL-2054Mei Tanaka | Intake | No change now. The case is at intake, so the 14-day window applies if a final attempt is asked for. | ○applies later |
Not affected: Joel Whitcombe (settlement) and Noor Haddad (arbitration or demand) are past the final repair attempt.
4 / Control stays put
New situations, never new powers.
The AI proposes branches and law updates. It cannot approve one, release one, or change a rule, a check or an approval by itself. Each change goes to the role that owns it.
| Change | Designer (Omar) | Control owner (Lena) | The AI |
|---|---|---|---|
| A new branch from repeated exceptions that touches no control, like the dealer branch | approves | not involved | drafts only |
| A new branch that adds, weakens or bypasses a control | approves | also approves | drafts only |
| A law change that edits a rule or a deadline, like the WLL §6(b) amendment | approves the release | approves | drafts only |
| Any rule, check, term or approval changed by the AI alone | approves a draft that touches no control | approves a draft that touches a control | never approves |
Controls are rules, clause checks, statutory deadlines and gate checks. Reminders and follow-ups are routes: they need the designer only. Omar can release a version only when every control in it carries Lena's approval.
Both improvement functions are on the AI registry, with an owner.
The registry names what each AI function runs on, what it may do, who owns it, and how it was last evaluated.
| AI function | Runs on | Authority | Owner | Last evaluation |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Draft a branch from repeated exceptions | open-weight model · self-hosted | Proposes a new version. The designer approves. | Omar (designer) | Passed on 10 Nov 2026: 14 cases for this branch. Pass mark: every difference explained. |
| Map a law change to rules and open cases | open-weight model · self-hosted | Proposes a new version. The control owner approves. | Lena (control owner) | Passed on 10 Nov 2026: 12 amendments. Pass mark: every affected rule and case found. |
- The AI can stop, but cannot release. Only an exact rule or a person lets anything through.
- No approval is ever made by the AI alone. The AI drafts, and people approve.
- Every improvement is a proposed new version, reviewed on the same screen and released the same way as v1.0.
Try it
Approve an improvement yourself.
In the lemon-law demo, approve the dealer branch as the designer, then the law change as the control owner, and release v1.2 as the designer.