A research workspace that respects jurisdiction.

Most question-answering tools treat case names as bare text. Cognoir does not. When a citation is to a Supreme Court of the United Kingdom decision, the citation says so. When the source is a Singapore High Court matter, the citation says so. When the source does not state a jurisdiction, the citation reflects that uncertainty — Cognoir does not infer one from context.

The reason: jurisdiction is the most common silent error in automated legal research. A general-purpose tool will cheerfully cite Donoghue v Stevenson without telling you it’s Scottish authority and not English. Cognoir surfaces that detail by default.

Statutes, regulations, and case law are tagged as primary at ingestion. Treatises, journal articles, and practitioner notes are tagged as secondary. Draft instruments are labelled as draft — and the citation shows the draft date so you don't quote unenacted text in a brief. The distinction is preserved through retrieval; you can ask Cognoir to answer only from primary sources when the question requires it.

Upload a master agreement, an SOW, and a counterparty’s redline. Ask “where do these three documents disagree on indemnity?” or “which document has the most permissive termination-for-convenience clause?” and Cognoir locates the relevant clauses with citations to the section and page of each.

This is the same pattern that a senior associate runs by hand when reviewing a stack of agreements. Cognoir does the location step; the judgement remains with the lawyer.

If your work is policy mapping, regulatory change-tracking, or quarterly compliance attestation across a stack of internal standards, Cognoir handles those as first-class document types. The citation format reflects the convention used in regulatory writing — section, sub-section, and paragraph — rather than the case-law style.