Understanding Results
When your research finishes, Judicio hands back a single synthesised answer — written in plain prose, with your question shown above it — where every claim is footnoted to the source behind it. This page walks through how to read that answer, how to open and verify each citation, and how to use the conversation to dig deeper.
The answer at a glance
The result is laid out so you can read it top to bottom, then verify anything you want to rely on:
- your question, restated at the top of the turn;
- the synthesised answer — a direct, written response, not a list of search hits;
- small blue numbered citation chips sitting inline next to the sentences they support;
- a Sources list (the citation panel) holding the full authority for every chip; and
- suggested follow-up chips beneath the answer to take the next step.
The synthesised answer
The answer is written for your question — Judicio reads the source material and composes a response, rather than dumping a results page for you to sift. Read it as you would a colleague's note: the prose carries the reasoning, and the citation chips let you check the support behind any sentence without breaking your flow.
The answer is rendered as rich text, so it can include headings, bulleted and numbered lists, tables (for example, a side-by-side of two lines of authority), and block quotes for verbatim passages from a case or statute. Use the copy control on the answer to lift the text into your own notes.
The written answer is the fast read. When you reach a sentence you intend to rely on — a holding, a deadline, a statutory test — click its citation chip and confirm the source says what the sentence says. Citation-first reading is how you turn a cited answer into reliable work product.
Inline citation chips
Each claim that rests on a source carries a small blue, numbered chip — [1], [2], [3] — placed right after the sentence it supports. The numbers run in the order the authorities are first mentioned, so [1] is the first source the answer leans on.
Hover or focus a chip (keyboard users can Tab to it) and a preview pops up showing:
- the title of the authority (case name, statute name, web page, or your uploaded file's name);
- the source it came from (for example Indian Kanoon, CourtListener, Web, or Uploaded file);
- the page or section reference, where there is one; and
- a short verbatim quote — the exact passage the answer drew on.
Click a chip and Judicio opens the Sources panel and scrolls to that authority's card, highlighting it. From there:
- A case, statute, or web source opens its full card in the Sources list, with the quoted passage and an action to open the original.
- A citation backed by one of your uploaded documents jumps you to the exact page of that file with the cited region highlighted — the same way Document Review and Review Matrix highlight a finding in its source page.
This is the loop that makes a Judicio answer verifiable: every assertion is one click from the words that back it.
Judicio extracts and formats citations with high accuracy, but you should confirm any authority against its source before putting it in a filing, an opinion, or advice. A click opens the exact passage behind each chip — use it. AI can occasionally misread an ambiguous passage or conflate two similar cases.
Archived snapshots — citations that never rot
Web sources move and disappear; a link that worked today can be dead next month. Judicio defends against that by archiving a snapshot of every web source it cites. From a web citation's card in the Sources panel you can:
- Download the archived source as a PDF — a frozen copy of the page as it read when Judicio cited it (built on demand, with a public-archive fallback when the live page is already gone); and
- Add to folder to save that archived PDF straight into your File Library, where it becomes a normal, searchable file in your matter.
Because the snapshot is captured at research time, your citation stays good even if the original page later changes or vanishes — the evidence behind your answer is preserved.
Rather than saving sources one by one, you can export an evidence pack — a single bundle of the archived snapshot for every cited source in the session. See Turn it into a draft or evidence pack.
Formal citation strings
For case law and statutes, the authority's card carries a properly formatted citation string in the convention for its jurisdiction, so you can drop it straight into your own document:
- India — SCC style, e.g. Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan, (1997) 6 SCC 241
- United States — Bluebook style, e.g. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)
- Canada — McGill Guide style, e.g. R v Oakes, [1986] 1 SCR 103
- United Kingdom — OSCOLA style, e.g. Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562
- European Union — CJEU style, e.g. Case C-131/12, Google Spain
Where Judicio has pinpointed the specific paragraph, page, or section that matters, the citation includes that pinpoint (for example ... at para 42), and the chip's hover preview shows the page reference so you can navigate straight to it.
How jurisdiction shapes the sourcing
Where an answer's sources come from depends on the jurisdiction Judicio is working in — which it detects from your wording, merges with your profile, and which you can pin on the Jurisdiction chip when you ask (see Composing Queries).
- 33 jurisdictions have a dedicated legal database behind them — for example Indian Kanoon (India), CourtListener (United States), CanLII (Canada), UK Case Law, and EUR-Lex (European Union). For these, Judicio searches the authority directly, which gives the deepest case-law and statute coverage and the most reliable, well-formed citations.
- For 100+ jurisdictions overall, Judicio researches across the open web alongside any dedicated database — reading official court and government sources, legislation portals, and reputable legal publishers.
In practice you'll see this in the source label on each citation: a dedicated-database jurisdiction yields more chips labelled with that database (e.g. Indian Kanoon), while a web-search jurisdiction leans more on Web sources. Either way the claim is cited and the snapshot is archived. For the full breakdown of what's covered where, see Jurisdictions.
Confidence and clarifying questions
Judicio is built to say when it isn't sure rather than guess — a deliberate guard against confident-but-wrong answers.
When your request is ambiguous or missing a key fact, instead of answering it asks first. You'll see a short clarifying-question card in the conversation with tappable option chips — for example which jurisdiction you mean, which party you're acting for, or a missing date. You can:
- tap an option (single- or multi-select) to answer;
- type a direct answer in the box if your answer isn't one of the chips;
- click Use defaults to let Judicio proceed on its stated assumptions; or
- click Type instead to answer back in the main composer.
Answering sharpens the result and avoids spending a run on the wrong question. If Judicio also needs a specific high-entropy fact it can't offer as a chip (a docket number, an exact date), it lists those under I also need so you can supply them.
Within an answer, watch for Judicio's own hedging language — where the law is unsettled, where authority conflicts, or where coverage is thin, it flags the limitation in the prose rather than papering over it. Treat a clearly-cited, unhedged statement as solid; treat a hedged or thinly-cited one as a lead to verify.
Suggested follow-ups and chat
Your research session is a conversation, not a one-shot. Beneath a completed answer Judicio offers a row of suggested follow-up chips — each a phrase it thinks you might want to ask next. Tap one to load it into the composer, or ignore them and type your own follow-up. Use follow-ups to:
- go deeper — "Tell me more about that decision — what were the specific facts?"
- narrow the scope — "Focus only on decisions from the last five years."
- explore a related issue — "What's the damages standard in these cases?"
- challenge the analysis — "Are there cases that reached the opposite conclusion?"
- compare jurisdictions — "How does this compare to the position in England?"
- reshape the output — "Summarise the key findings as a table."
Judicio keeps the full context of the session, so each follow-up builds on what came before — it refines the existing analysis rather than re-running the search from scratch. That makes follow-ups both faster and cheaper than starting a brand-new query.
Stay in the same session while you're working the same question — every follow-up inherits the sources and reasoning already on screen. Open a new research session when you move to a genuinely different matter.
Saving and sharing
- Auto-saved — every session is saved to your account automatically; pick it back up from your history at any time.
- Share with your team — teammates with access to the matter can open the session and see the same cited answer and sources.
- Export — turn the answer into a memo or opinion, or download an evidence pack of every source. See Working with Drafts.
Next steps
- Working with Drafts — turn a cited answer into a memo or opinion, and export an evidence pack of every source.
- Composing Queries — write sharper questions so the answer needs fewer clarifications.
- Jurisdictions — see which jurisdictions have a dedicated database and which are web-researched.