WOLF AI field guide
WOLF AI vs. generic AI and eDiscovery.
WOLF AI is positioned as a workflow-specific case-intelligence layer for plaintiff-side FCA teams. General AI tools are broad assistants, while eDiscovery systems are generally centered on collection, processing, search, review, and production across many dispute types.
Published · Last reviewed
Written and maintained by the WOLF AI product team and checked against the public sources cited on this page. It has not been reviewed by outside counsel, and it is not legal advice.
What do the numbers say?
The NIST AI Risk Management Framework organizes trustworthy AI around functions it calls Govern, Map, Measure, and Manage, and treats traceability and human oversight as design requirements rather than optional additions. Source-linked output is the practical form that traceability takes in a litigation workflow.
Comment 8 to ABA Model Rule 1.1 states that maintaining competence requires a lawyer to keep abreast of "the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology." Adopting an AI-assisted workflow and verifying what it produces are treated as two halves of the same professional obligation, not as separate choices.
Source: ABA Model Rule 1.1: Competence (including technology)
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) requires that a party "must state with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake." In practice that is what turns an FCA matter into a document-organization problem: the allegation has to name specific claims, dates, and actors, each traceable to a record.
Source: Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b): pleading fraud with particularity
Who is this workflow for?
Firms deciding what to buy, or deciding whether a tool they already pay for covers this work. The honest answer is often that the existing tool covers most of it.
When it is the wrong tool. This is a category comparison. It is not a claim about any named vendor, product tier, or configuration, and it should not be read as a recommendation to replace an existing system of record.
What documents and inputs do you need?
- An inventory of what the firm already runs: document management, eDiscovery, and any general AI assistant already approved for client material.
- The specific FCA workflow steps that are currently manual.
- The firm’s confidentiality and approval requirements for AI tools.
How does the workflow actually run?
- 1.Use eDiscovery or existing storage for the document-management scope it actually covers.
- 2.Use WOLF AI to structure source-linked FCA work product where the early-stage product supports the workflow.
- 3.Use attorney review to validate every output and resolve legal significance.
- 4.Keep the systems of record and approval responsibilities explicit during a pilot.
What does this look like in practice?
Illustrative scenario
Illustrative only. A boutique already licenses an eDiscovery platform and has a general AI assistant approved for non-client work.
- Collection, processing, and production stay in the eDiscovery platform. That is what it is for, and moving it would be a downgrade.
- The general assistant is not given client documents, because it is not approved for them.
- The manual steps that remain — building the chronology, mapping claims to passages, assembling the damages population — are the candidates for a workflow-specific layer.
- A pilot is scoped to exactly those steps, with the eDiscovery platform still the system of record.
What this does not show. If the manual steps that remain are small, the honest conclusion is that the existing stack is enough.
What do you get out, and who reviews it?
- A clear division of scope between systems, written down before a pilot starts.
- An explicit statement of which system is the system of record.
- Counsel and the firm’s IT and confidentiality owners approve any tool that touches client material.
Where does this approach break down?
- This is a category-level comparison, not a claim about every vendor or configuration.
- WOLF AI is not represented as replacing eDiscovery, legal research, or counsel.
- Integration and feature coverage must be confirmed for the specific firm environment.
- There is no public production API or MCP server, so integration options are limited today.
Common questions
Does WOLF AI replace an eDiscovery platform?
No. It is not represented as covering collection, preservation, processing, or production, and firms should keep those where they already work.
Why not just use a general AI assistant?
Two reasons that matter more than capability: most general assistants are not approved for client material at a given firm, and their output is not structured as source-linked, reviewable work product tied to a matter.
Can it integrate with our document management system?
There is no public production API or MCP server today. Integration scope is a demo conversation, not a shipped feature.