Comparison · two buyer workflows · one evidence system
Legal AI workflow vs Defense AI workflow.
Use this when a buyer is comparing review paths. In both cases, the self-serve API gates the action and retains a sealed evidence record that compliance can inspect.
01 ·
Side-by-side.
Fleet · control context · audience · evidence contract
Fleet under measurementLegal AI workflow: legal-research, drafting, citation-faithfulness, contract-review AI
Defense AI workflow: battlestaff, intel cells, mission planning, and decision-support agents
Defense AI workflow: battlestaff, intel cells, mission planning, and decision-support agents
Control contextLegal AI workflow: FRE 702, proposed FRE 707, ABA Model Rules 1.1 / 1.6 / 3.3 / 5.1–5.3, ABA Formal Opinion 512
Defense AI workflow: NIST AI RMF, OMB M-25-21/22, DoW RAI S&IP, CMMC evidence questions, DoW impact-level review planning
Defense AI workflow: NIST AI RMF, OMB M-25-21/22, DoW RAI S&IP, CMMC evidence questions, DoW impact-level review planning
AudienceLegal AI workflow: AmLaw firms, in-house general counsel, court chambers, litigation support
Defense AI workflow: program offices, ATO-package owners, JADC2 staff
Defense AI workflow: program offices, ATO-package owners, JADC2 staff
Reference controlsBoth workflows draw from register 09; the views at /corpus/for/law and /corpus/for/defense frame the references for each audience.
Shared evidence systemThe same gate, route, seal, verify, and meter contract serves both paths. See the API reference.
02 ·
Which review path fits the buyer.
A one-line decision pin per workflow
Legal AI workflow. Pick when the buyer is a firm GC or court and the question is admissibility (FRE 702 / 707), confidentiality (ABA 1.6), or competence (ABA 1.1 / Formal 512).
Defense AI workflow. Pick when the buyer is a U.S. defense program office and the evidence must support authorization, CMMC, or impact-level review.
If the question spans both domains, use the same self-serve API path and attach both control contexts to the evidence record. The record contract is shared; sufficiency remains evaluator-specific.