Live demo
Run the pipeline yourself.
A real end-to-end run on a fixed sample matter — drafted, checked against the primary sources, read by a hostile reader that has read the playbook, and cleared by an independent governance gate. The completed live run is shown below.
Quadratic does not detect AI-written or ‘inauthentic’ documents, and never will. It simulates how a hostile reader could attack your document — it never adjudicates who wrote it.
Run it yourself
Run the pipeline.
Press Run to execute this live
Runs on a fixed sample matter with fictional parties. Not legal advice. Nothing you enter is collected — there is nothing to enter.
Governance verdict · the gate did its job
YELLOW — Held for revision
The independent governance check blocked release and ordered the admission reframed — the gate catching and hardening risky work before it leaves the building.
Quality 3.43 / 5 · 3 remediation orders
What each stage did
The drafter is never the reviewer.
- 01
Response drafting
Draft response produced.
Passed - 02
Legal-reference check
Verified against Australian employment-law references.
Grounded · sealed authority packPassedLegal references are checked against integrity-sealed Australian authorities, each naming its source instrument and citation.
- 03
Hostile-reader test
Found an extractable standalone admission an employer could quote in isolation.
Grounded · documented employer practiceFlaggedThe hostile reading draws on an evidence-graded corpus of documented Australian employer practice.
- 04
Governance review
Blocked release; ordered the admission reframed before anything leaves the building.
Held
Reference sample from the pinned matter
The delta — the thesis in one diff
Before — extractable admission
I admit that on the date in question I left my rostered shift approximately forty minutes before the scheduled end time. I make no admission beyond that precise fact. I do not admit that my departure was unauthorised in the sense alleged, that it abandoned my post, that it placed residents at risk, or that it constituted serious misconduct.
After — context fused in
While I accept that on the date in question I left my rostered shift approximately forty minutes before the scheduled end time, I contest that this departure was unauthorised in the sense alleged, that it abandoned my post, that it placed residents at risk, or that it constituted serious misconduct justifying summary dismissal. The circumstances were that I felt unwell during the shift and informed a colleague on duty before leaving.
Re-ruling after remediation: quality 3.43 → 4.30 · 3 → 2 orders. After one bounded remediation cycle the admission blocking-order was resolved and quality rose from 3.43 to 4.3 — but the gate still holds the document on a different residual finding. It does not rubber-stamp after a single revision.
How the hostile reader is grounded — a property of every run
The hostile reader has read the playbook.
The hostile-reader stage is grounded in fetch-verified primary sources — statutory instruments, tribunal decisions, and the actual template letters public-sector employers use. Every entry is evidence-graded, carries its source, and reaches the reviewer only through integrity-sealed, deterministic selection.
- Verbatim
- Carries the source’s actual words.
- Paraphrase
- A faithful restatement, marked as such.
- Inferred
- A generalisation — capped below documented fact. Inference is never promoted to fact.
integrity-sealed entriesdeterministic selectionfabricated citation blocks the runhonest absence over improvisation
Coverage today: Australian PIP, show-cause, allegation, direction, suspension, warning and investigation processes — Commonwealth and QLD/VIC/NSW/WA public-sector depth. If nothing matches at high confidence, the system says so rather than improvising.
Quadratic does not detect AI-written or ‘inauthentic’ documents, and never will. It simulates how a hostile reader could attack your document — it never adjudicates who wrote it.
Verification
Reference live run verified 2026-06-25 · australia-southeast1 · image sha256:9cb4cb05700e…
This runs on a fixed sample matter with fictional parties. It is not legal advice and not advice about any real situation.
Quadratic is not legal advice and is not a law firm.
Prefer a recorded walk-through?
The same run, stepped through stage by stage over a wholly fictional matter. This is a fixed sample matter — not legal advice, and not advice about any real situation.
Investor lens
The moat is the delta — not that the stages ran.
Watch what the hostile-reader stage attacks and what the document becomes: a measurable before/after, produced by a four-model, multi-provider adversarial pipeline with an independent governance gate that blocks risky drafts. The investor-gated tier runs this live, on demand, on a sample-locked fixture.
Summary dismissal: admission + proportionality
YELLOW · Held for revisionSummary-dismissal response (unfair dismissal) · Victoria, Australia · fictional parties (Maribyrnong Aged Care Services Pty Ltd v Sam Citizen)
A Victorian aged-care worker was summarily dismissed for serious misconduct after leaving a shift about forty minutes early on one occasion (while unwell, having told a colleague). The worker admits the limited fact but contests the serious-misconduct characterisation, the proportionality of dismissal, and the procedural fairness.
How the pipeline handled it
Governance outcome
YELLOW · Held for revisionHeld for revision. The independent governance check blocked release and ordered the admission reframed — the gate catching and hardening risky work before it leaves the building.
Quality score 3.43/5 · 3 remediation orders
The delta — the thesis in one diff
Plumbing proves infrastructure; the change proves worth. This is exactly what the adversarial pass surfaced and how the draft was hardened.
The admission of early departure. The hostile-reader stage attacked the draft; the governance stage ordered a fix; the drafting stage hardened it. Here is the actual before and after.
Attack: The hostile-reader stage found the admission written as a standalone, extractable concession — an employer could quote the acceptance of leaving early in isolation, stripped of its contestation and mitigating context.
Order: Rework all admissions so any concession is inseparably integrated with contestation and mitigating context — eliminate standalone admission sentences that can be lifted out.
Hardening: The drafting stage reworked the admission with a defensive subordinator (“While I accept … I contest …”), fusing the concession to its contestation and mitigation so it can no longer be quoted on its own.
Before — extractable admission
I admit that on the date in question I left my rostered shift approximately forty minutes before the scheduled end time. I make no admission beyond that precise fact. I do not admit that my departure was unauthorised in the sense alleged, that it abandoned my post, that it placed residents at risk, or that it constituted serious misconduct.
After — context fused in
While I accept that on the date in question I left my rostered shift approximately forty minutes before the scheduled end time, I contest that this departure was unauthorised in the sense alleged, that it abandoned my post, that it placed residents at risk, or that it constituted serious misconduct justifying summary dismissal. The circumstances were that I felt unwell during the shift and informed a colleague on duty before leaving.
Re-ruling after remediation
Quality 3.43 → 4.30/5 · 3 → 2 orders
After one bounded remediation cycle the admission blocking-order was resolved and quality rose from 3.43 to 4.3 — but the gate still holds the document on a different residual finding. It does not rubber-stamp after a single revision.