How notredchip works

Form submit (name, email, message)
   │
   ▼
PII redactor  ─── heuristic + Haiku verifier ──▶ "What AI saw"
   │
   ▼
Router (Opus 4.7) ─── 5 categories + Cat 3 sub-classification + recipient
   │
   ├─ Cat 5 (spam) ─▶ short-circuit. Logged, no email, no further AI calls.
   │
   ▼
Specialist (Opus 4.7 + web_search)
   ├─ Litigation:           full research → BCCM Act + modules + AustLII cases
   ├─ Cat 3 legal_advice:   full research → BCCM Act + by-law cases
   ├─ Cat 3 proposal:       light research + sales framing
   ├─ Admin redirect:       light research → redchip.com.au + bccm.qld.gov.au
   └─ MR Paralegal:         brief extract → transaction parameters
   │
   ▼
Drafter (Opus 4.7) ── destination-aware tone per category
   │
   ▼
Verifier (Opus 4.7) ── fact-check claims vs sources (skipped for MR + spam)
   │
   ▼
Dashboard ── partner edits ── "Approve & send"
   │
   ▼
Real email with "Would route to: <recipient>" header. Never to the client.

Every enquiry passes through five sequential agents — except spam, which short-circuits at the router. Each step persists to the audit log so a partner can see exactly what the AI did and why.

Before any enquiry text reaches a research agent, a heuristic regex pass strips known identifiers — phone numbers, emails, addresses, ABN/ACN, Medicare numbers, and the client's own name. A second Claude Haiku 4.5 pass catches what regex misses, especially third-party names (opposing parties, Body Corporate Managers, neighbours) and building names that identify a small complex, using role-tagged placeholders so meaning is preserved.

“The chairman at 14 Acacia St spoke with our BCM Sarah Jones…”
→ “The chairman at [REDACTED-ADDRESS] spoke with our BCM [REDACTED-PERSON: body_corp_manager]…”

Classifies the redacted message into one of five operational categories — Admin redirect, Litigation, By-laws / CMS (with a sub-classification: redirect / legal_advice / proposal_opportunity), MR Paralegal, or Spam. Returns confidence, reasoning, and the recipient name. When confidence is low or the matter genuinely straddles two categories, it flags needs_clarification with a follow-up question for the partner to ask. Spam short-circuits the rest of the pipeline.

Each category has its own profile — system prompt, allowed source domains, and reference legislation. The depth of research varies by category:

• Litigation: full research against AustLII, legislation.qld.gov.au, qcat.qld.gov.au and courts.qld.gov.au. Cites BCCM Act sections and identifies which regulation module applies (Standard / Accommodation / Commercial / Two-Lot / Small Schemes). Pulls QCAT adjudicator orders for relevant disputes.
• By-laws / CMS (legal_advice or proposal_opportunity): same depth as Litigation, plus redchip.com.au content for the proposal-opportunity path.
• Admin redirect & By-laws (redirect): lighter research — finds redchip.com.au content and Office of the Commissioner procedural pages to link.
• MR Paralegal: brief — extracts transaction parameters (top-up vs sale vs purchase, scheme indicators, timing) for the paralegal to slot into existing templates.
• Spam: no specialist call. Short-circuited.

The specialist persists Anthropic's native citation blocks verbatim — no hallucinated URLs, no paraphrased quotes.

The drafter knows where the bundle is going and tailors the response accordingly:

• Admin: 120-180 words, plain-English, points to specific Redchip content and Commissioner's Office pages.
• Litigation: 250-350 words, partner-grade brief with named BCCM Act sections, applicable module, and 2-3 questions for the partner to ask the client.
• By-laws Proposal Team: 200-300 words including a pitch paragraph for the by-laws review service (with a placeholder for Jen to insert real scope and pricing).
• MR Paralegal: 100-180 words, bullet-list of transaction parameters, flags whether it fits an existing template.

Three hard rules baked into every drafter prompt: never state a legal conclusion, frame everything as “matters that may be relevant”, and always end with the standard no-advice / no-relationship disclaimer.

A senior-lawyer-style fact-check: each substantive claim in the draft is cross-referenced against the source it cites. Citation mismatches and unsupported claims flag the inquiry for partner attention. Skipped for MR Paralegal briefs (paralegal extracts don't need citation-level support) and Spam.

• Multi-inbox routing — instead of a single `DEMO_NOTIFY_EMAIL`, each category routes to its real destination (Admin, Litigation team, MR Paralegal, By-laws Proposal Team). Environment-variable swap, no code change.
• Data residency — AU-region Supabase plus a data processing agreement with Anthropic for client confidentiality and Australian Privacy Principles compliance.
• CRM integration — Inquiries flow into the firm's existing system (Smokeball, ActionStep, Salesforce). Partner accounts replace the demo session cookie.
• Conflict checking — Before drafting, the system queries the firm's conflict register and flags potential conflicts on the dashboard. This demo shows the integration point but does not perform the check.
• Real notifications — Slack/Teams notifications to the responsible person, with the bundle attached as an actionable card.
• By-laws review service copy — Jen supplies the real scope and pricing for the Cat 3 proposal-opportunity path. Currently stubbed in the drafter prompt.
• Audit and observability — Anthropic prompt + response stored per-step (already in this demo); plus per-destination usage dashboards and cost allocation.

• Send any email or message to the actual client. The drafted email always goes to the destination team only.
• Provide legal advice. All output is framed as intake preparation for a lawyer to review.
• Replace partner judgment. The “Approve & send” step is always a manual click after review.