⚠ Technical Preview Currently free. No commercial offering. All infrastructure costs are borne personally by the creator.
Professional Verification Standard · Legal AI Compliance

Before you file,
you declare.
ZTR makes it provable.

Every document you file contains an implicit statement: "I verified." ZTR makes it explicit, contemporaneous, and verifiable. In an era where artificial intelligence generates content indistinguishable from human work, the simple assertion "I verified" is no longer sufficient. The court cannot take your word for it. It must see the proof.

"This is not a click. This is a declaration."

What
Your professional declaration
Your note, drafted at the moment of verification. "Citations verified against Westlaw. No AI-generated content in Section 4. Client identity confirmed." Your words, your judgment, your responsibility.
When
The exact moment
An eIDAS-qualified timestamp from Aruba PEC S.p.A. — a Qualified Trust Service Provider recognised in 27 EU countries and the UK. Legally presumed accurate. Cannot be altered retroactively.
Which document
The SHA-256 fingerprint
A 64-character cryptographic hash that uniquely identifies the exact document you reviewed. If a single character changes after verification, the hash no longer matches. The link is unbreakable.
Who declares
Your professional identity
Your verified identity, traceable and non-repudiable. The declaration is attributed to you — the professional who reviewed the document — not to the AI that produced it.

The problem ZTR solves is not hallucination. It is the absence of proof that verification ever occurred. Courts across four jurisdictions have now established that this absence is treated as evidence of fault — independent of whether an error was made.

Miller v. Regions Bank · N.D. Alabama · 2026
The Two-Track Doctrine
AI hallucinations in a federal brief. The error received a public reprimand. The destruction of the ChatGPT account — eliminating all contemporaneous record — received adverse inference, contempt, and a six-month suspension.
The sanction was for the missing record, not the error.
H.C. v. Contreras · California 5th DCA · F089316 · 2026
Three Gates. Zero Records.
A fabricated citation flagged by opposing counsel. The judge adopted it anyway, copying it verbatim into the ruling — identified on appeal through an identical typographical error. Three verification gates. No contemporaneous record of any review.
Reversed. Reassigned to a new judge.
CPS / Tobosaru · EWHC 1720 (Admin) · UK · 2026
The State as Actor.
The Crown Prosecution Service submitted hallucinated citations to the High Court. Each reader assumed someone upstream had already verified. No one had. The material survived the permission stage unchallenged.
CPS admitted: "human error in failure to verify."
Law Society of Ontario · Mary Hyun-Sook Lee · Canada · 2026
First Canadian Suspension.
ChatGPT-fabricated citations in an estate matter. The lawyer denied using AI. The Tribunal was explicit: the dishonesty — the absence of any truthful contemporaneous account — drove the severity of the sanction.
6-month suspension · $10,000 · Criminal contempt referral.

Without ZTR and with ZTR.

Situation Without ZTR With ZTR
When challenged in court "I verified" — your word against the record A timestamped, tamper-evident, verifiable declaration
Proof of timing No trace of when verification occurred Certain proof of the exact moment — eIDAS qualified
Document integrity The document may have been modified after review SHA-256 hash links declaration to the specific document
Under disciplinary review Only memories and retrospective notes Receipt ID enabling immediate retrieval of the contemporaneous record
Firm AI policy compliance Policy exists on paper — no proof it was followed Per-document proof that the policy was applied
Sanctions exposure The court converts absence into evidence of fault The record exists before it is ever needed
How ZTR Works

Four steps. One verifiable record.

I
Prepare your document
The document you are about to file — drafted with or without AI assistance. Any content, any format. ZTR operates on the text passed to Claude.
II
Write your professional declaration
Tell Claude what you verified. This declaration becomes part of the permanent record — alongside the hash and the timestamp.
"Citations verified against Westlaw. No AI hallucinations detected. Client name verified. Deadline confirmed."
III
ZTR creates the contemporaneous record
The document is hashed (SHA-256). Your declaration, the hash, and the timestamp are sealed together with an HMAC integrity check. Aruba PEC applies the eIDAS-qualified timestamp. The document is immediately discarded — never stored.
IV
You receive your receipt
A unique Receipt ID. Permanent. Retrievable at any time. If ever asked whether you can demonstrate that verification occurred — the answer is yes.
What a ZTR Receipt Contains
receipt_id ZTR-20260722143022-a7f3c891
document_sha256 6576176c9194ee143b7b58271cf91fed8a4209...
review_timestamp 2026-07-22T14:30:22Z (UTC)
review_note "Citations verified against Westlaw. No AI-generated content in Sections 2-4. Client identity confirmed against file. Deadline: 2026-07-25."
context legal_filing
tsa_status VERIFIED · eIDAS · Aruba PEC S.p.A. · RFC 3161
integrity_hmac 5ca0df8d27258399a4e7db58d4f3bb...
The original document is not stored. Only the SHA-256 hash (64 characters) is retained. The document text is hashed and immediately discarded — it never leaves your environment.

This is not a click. This is a declaration.

ZTR does not automate verification. It records your professional declaration of verification — at the moment it happens, before it is ever challenged. The legal value of ZTR lies in the contemporaneous nature of the record: it exists before the question is asked, not in response to it.

What ZTR Does Not Do

Before we tell you what ZTR is, let us be clear about what it is not.

ZTR does not review your work. It does not check citations. It does not evaluate whether your verification was sufficient.

That is not a limitation. That is a feature.

Your professional judgment is irreplaceable. ZTR does not attempt to replace it — it protects it. It gives you the tool to say, with absolute certainty: "This is what I verified, this is when I verified it, and this is the document I verified."

The court will still evaluate your work. But now you can prove you did it.

ZTR does not relieve you of the responsibility to do your work well.
ZTR relieves you of the risk of being unable to prove you did it.

Every major AI governance framework now requires demonstrable human oversight.

The question is no longer whether oversight is required. It is whether you can prove it happened.

USA · 2024
ABA Formal Opinion 512
Lawyers using AI must apply competence and supervision standards. Every AI-assisted filing must be independently verified before submission.
ZTR creates the contemporaneous record of that verification.
USA · 2026
Rhode Island Rule 1.1
The Supreme Court amended the competence rule to explicitly include understanding AI capabilities and limitations. Independent verification before filing is now a stated requirement.
ZTR documents compliance with the verification requirement.
EU · 2026
EU AI Act · Article 17
High-risk AI systems require documented quality management systems. Human oversight must be built into workflows — and demonstrable. The EN 18286 harmonised standard is imminent.
ZTR provides the contemporaneous record that oversight was exercised.
UK · 2026
UKJT Legal Statement on AI
Professionals may be negligent for failing to use AI where a competent colleague would — and for using it without adequate verification. The standard is moving, and it moves with adoption.
ZTR documents that the verification standard was met, case by case.
UK · 2026
Nuffield Foundation · Sargeant
Of 45 AI tools in the England and Wales justice system, only 7 have independent evaluation. Human oversight is treated as the principal safeguard — yet no deployment evaluation examines whether it works in practice.
ZTR is the first instrument that makes human oversight demonstrable at the document level.
MULTIPLE · 2026
The Sanctions Doctrine
Courts across four jurisdictions have established that the absence of a contemporaneous verification record is treated as evidence of fault — independent of whether an error was made. The missing record is the sanctionable fact.
ZTR ensures a contemporaneous record always exists, before it is ever needed.
The Professional Standard

The question is no longer whether to verify.
It is whether you can prove you did.

ZTR is currently in free technical preview. Install it, evaluate it, and see the record for yourself. The contemporaneous record is created at the moment of review — before it is ever needed, before the question is ever asked.

Install on Claude → Read Documentation
Zorthex™ · Powered by Claude · eIDAS-Qualified Timestamps via Aruba PEC S.p.A.
Built on the Zorthex L₂ research framework · doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20589503
UIBM Trademark N.302026000090628