Proceed
61–75%Illustrative scenario band; motion remains the largest unresolved dependency.
Coming soonDecision intelligence for complex disputes
Complex disputes,
moved forward
by URIM.
A mathematical decision instrument being developed to model the uncertain events behind litigation strategy, settlement, reserves, and capital allocation.
In development · Illustrative product interface · Not legal advice
URIM workflows
Commercial agreement disputeShould this matter proceed to full diligence?
URM-24-071 · v0.8Current assessment68%
Illustrative scenario range 61–75%
0255075100
Largest scenario contrastJurisdiction motion · ±14 pts
Next eventMotion decision
Working postureContinue diligence; preserve settlement option.
Strategy comparisonThree plausible paths, one decision record.
Illustrative · not a forecastReopen settlement
Protect valueTest certainty against cost, time, and downside.
Pause
Evidence firstResolve the expert record before committing further.
Matter monitoringChange the view when the record changes.
Last review · illustrative- Jurisdiction decision pendingOpen
Current range remains conditional.
- Comparator set reviewedRecorded
Two matters excluded after counsel review.
- Agreement record structuredComplete
Material assumptions separated from observed facts.
Review fileEvery conclusion carries its basis.
Human review requiredAuthorities and comparator records linked to propositions.
Material unknowns marked for challenge.
Events capable of moving the recommendation.
Disagreement preserved instead of averaged away.
What is URIM? · Coming soon
A mathematical model of the decision behind the case.
URIM is being developed to represent a dispute as a system of observed facts, unresolved events, possible outcomes, and available actions—then expose the assumptions and dependencies behind the resulting decision.
The intended mathematical object
Not a score. A distribution over possible paths.
URIM is being designed to model the joint uncertainty connecting the current record, unresolved events, terminal outcomes, and decisions available to the user.
Proposed joint predictive object
p(Y, Z, θ, M | X, D)
Marginalize over unresolved events, uncertain parameters, and candidate models to calculate the quantity relevant to the decision.
- D
- Historical comparison data
- X
- Observed matter record
- Z
- Unresolved factual, legal, and procedural events
- Y
- Possible terminal outcomes
- A
- Actions available to the decision-maker
Define the dependency structure.
Represent which unresolved events enable, prevent, or materially change later events and outcomes.
Z₁ → Z₂ → YPropagate uncertainty.
Compute a predictive distribution rather than hiding uncertainty behind a categorical answer.
q = p(Y = 1 | X, D)Measure scenario influence.
Recompute the output under explicit alternative conditions to identify the events with the greatest leverage.
Δᵢ = q(Zᵢ=1) − q(Zᵢ=0)Compare available actions.
Relate possible outcomes to value, cost, duration, and downside under a disclosed decision rule.
A* = arg max E[U(A,Y) | X,D]Development status This section describes the intended mathematical architecture. It is not a claim that a validated production model is currently available.
Inside the decision brief
Reviewable workflows.
Sharper decisions.
Structured sequences make the reasoning portable—from matter team to client, claims file, or investment committee.
Critical path
See what the matter depends on.
Separate observed events from open dependencies, and show which event can strengthen, weaken, or break the current thesis.
Commercial agreement disputeIllustrative
- 01Agreement recordComparator scope establishedObserved
- 02Jurisdiction motionLargest scenario contrast · ±14 ptsOpen
- 03Expert evidenceRequired for damages theoryConditional
- 04Decision postureReview after material eventReview
Assumption review
Challenge the basis, not just the answer.
Observed facts, declared assumptions, missing evidence, comparator logic, and dissent remain visible around the conclusion.
+
Which assumption has the most leverage?
Material assumptionForum clause applies to the present claim.
Lower impactHigher impact
Review note Counsel confirmation required before this assumption can support a recommendation.
Use cases
How dispute decision-makers use URIM.
One reviewable instrument, applied to the recurring decisions where uncertainty carries a real cost.
URIM / Matter screeningIllustrative
Should this matter move to full diligence?↑
Screen a matter before full diligence.
Organize the initial posture, comparator fit, open evidence, and largest sensitivities before scarce senior attention is committed.
Discuss matter screeningURIM / Strategy comparisonIllustrative
ProceedReopen settlementEvidence first
Advise on strategy and settlement.
Compare plausible paths, make the assumptions behind each recommendation explicit, and preserve the reasons a recommendation may change.
Discuss decision briefsURIM / Portfolio monitorIllustrative
Matter 071Material event recordedReview
Monitor a portfolio as facts change.
Update the decision record when a defined ruling, fact, or assumption changes—then see which matters require new attention.
Discuss portfolio monitoringPlanned capabilities
What the brief is being built to show.
617568%
Uncertainty interval
State exactly what the displayed interval means.
ProceedSettlePause
Scenario analysis
Compare plausible strategies side by side.
Authority
Linked to proposition
ComparatorInclusion logic recorded
Provenance
Keep sources attached to what they support.
Observed factAssumptionMissing evidence
Reviewability
Separate facts, assumptions, and unknowns.
Model AModel BReviewerDissent preserved
Analytical record
Show material agreement and dissent.
v0.8
Comparator scope revised
v0.7Expert evidence added
Change record
Version what changed, when, and why.
Who is URIM for?
Being built for the person accountable for the recommendation.
URIM’s first research scope is aimed at professionals making repeated, material decisions across complex disputes.
Don’t see your role? Talk to us.- Litigation partners01
- Chief litigation counsel02
- Claims and litigation leaders03
- Litigation-finance underwriters04
- Senior disputes analysts05
Where URIM fits
From one matter to a portfolio view.
The decision brief comes first. Monitoring and portfolio comparison follow only when the brief itself proves useful.
U
Coming soon · Assisted assessment
URIM Decision Brief
The planned first product: a counsel-reviewed distribution, critical path, assumptions, sensitivities, sources, and version record for one consequential decision.
Join the founding researchFuture research phase
URIM Portfolio Monitor
A governed view of which matters changed, why they changed, and where senior review is newly justified.
See the research sequenceEvidence standard
Trust has to be earned in the method.
URIM will not publish a corpus count, win-rate claim, or performance figure until it is real, dated, reproducible, and scoped to the matter class and jurisdiction tested.
- 01
Temporal testing
Evaluate on decisions the system could not have seen.
- 02
Calibration first
Test whether estimated probabilities correspond to observed frequencies.
- 03
Failure inventory
Publish exclusions, abstentions, missing data, and material failure modes.
- 04
Versioned change
Record changes to data, models, review, and affected briefs.
Data security, privacy, and governance
Professional control stays visible.
Matter minimization
The public site requests only broad portfolio context. It does not accept party names, documents, confidential facts, or privileged strategy.
Human review
The instrument informs professional judgment. Counsel remains responsible for legal analysis, client advice, and every decision taken.
Versioned provenance
The intended brief records its source basis, assumptions, model and data version, analyst review, and reason for revision.
Frequently asked questions
Before the briefing.
No. URIM is under development. The interfaces and numerical examples on this site illustrate the intended product and mathematical architecture; they are not outputs from a validated production system.
No. URIM is an analytical research instrument. Its intended outputs are probabilistic estimates designed to support review by qualified professionals, not replace counsel.
A matter posture, defined uncertainty interval, assumptions, comparator logic, dependency structure, scenario contrasts, alternative actions, sources, dissent, versions, and a human-review statement.
No. Do not submit party names, facts, documents, confidential information, or privileged strategy through the public form. Any future matter intake requires an approved secure workflow.
The initial research focus is Canadian commercial litigation, beginning with a narrow matter class and jurisdictional scope selected for data quality and achievable validation. That scope is not yet finalized.
No. Public performance claims will appear only when they are dated, reproducible, appropriately reviewed, and clearly bounded by matter class, jurisdiction, and method.
Coming soon · Founding research
Help define a credible mathematical decision brief.
URIM is still under development. We are speaking with senior professionals who make or support repeated, high-value dispute decisions. Share your role and broad portfolio context—not matter facts, party names, documents, or privileged information.
- 01Where uncertainty is most expensive
- 02What a credible decision brief must show
- 03Which validation and governance gates matter first
Request received
Thank you.
Your context has been recorded. Laboratoires Structure will review whether a useful research conversation is possible.