A text does not have one version, it has one per period. The scene stacks fourteen versions of the same text, stops a cutting plane at the date a contract was signed and lights the version then in force: articles repealed since fade, those added later stand apart, and a court decision links to the stratum it actually judged. A shape and a movement — no real text in the scene.
Fourteen versions of the same text rise one by one, like strata. A cutting plane stops at the date a contract was signed: the version in force that day lights up, the articles repealed since fade, those added later stand apart. A court decision links to the stratum it actually judged.
A lawyer, a legal counsel, a legal department that must read a contract with the text of its time, not today's.
Watch the cut descend: the date moves, not the text.
Three.js · WebGL · 14 strates · 90 fibres · 380 grains · plan de coupe · récit en 5 chapitres · repli sans WebGL
Three regimes for one standard contract, a switchover date that changes the applicable criterion, interfaces written before any dispute: what the reading produced — never a forecast. Names removed, volumes kept.
TRACK RECORD · REAL ASSIGNMENTS, NAMES WITHHELD
A bidder for a structural works and waterproofing package, inside the restricted area of an international airport. Moroccan contract, firm non-revisable price.
When · 2026.
What we did
We ran the file end to end: seventeen documents read, take-off from the dimensioned drawings, a day-by-day seven-month execution programme, a technical submission in two volumes, a site layout for a landlocked footprint, a security-constraints note — then the written questions to the client, before pricing.
What it produced
Seventeen documents read and each tied to what it evidences; about 1,200 square metres of net floor area, four quadrants around a circular patio; close to 800 cubic metres of structural concrete and 120 tonnes of steel held by the bill; 1,340 square metres of waterproofing and 432 metres of upstands; nine questions asked before the first price.
What was hard
The file arrived as an eighteen-month, three-site, all-trades parent contract, inside which the real package had to be isolated: one site, seven months. Reading both contractual tiers avoided scheduling — and paying for — a site installation two and a half times too long. And a floating screed imposed by the acoustic report added fifty-six millimetres to every raw floor: it is written in no structural document.
Contractors bidding outside France: nationally funded contracts, contracts financed by a multilateral lender, private contracts under a standard engineering form.
When · Reference corpus assembled and kept open through 2026.
What we did
We assembled the corpus that lets you qualify a contract before reading it: which regime applies — the buying entity's, never the programme's label —, which edition of the standard form is referenced, where the particular conditions sit, and which protections they have removed.
What it produced
The general conditions of an international standard engineering contract — twenty clauses, 453 pages — in the version reproduced inside a multilateral lender's standard bidding document; the standard documents of four lenders; ten countries and two regional economic unions, every text opened and dated; the published fee scales of institutional arbitration, so a dispute cost is provided for instead of endured.
What was hard
The edition. An article quoted from the wrong vintage is a mistake, and the freely available vintage is not the most recent one: one lender stopped reproducing that text in July 2019. Every clause we quote comes from the document we opened, with its edition; what we have not opened is marked as unverified, never quietly filled in.
French contractors and public buyers, on consultations straddling the switchover.
When · Watch maintained through 2026.
What we did
We went back to the text for two things: what changes, and above all the rule that decides which of the two regimes applies to a given file.
What it produced
Since 22 August 2026, every French public contract carries at least one award criterion taking the environmental characteristics of the bid into account (French public procurement code, article L. 2152-7, as enacted by law no. 2021-1104 of 22 August 2021, article 35). For scale: according to the 2024 census of the French public procurement observatory, published in 2025, an environmental criterion appeared in 25 % of contracts and a social criterion in 12 %, across 223,383 contracts worth 233.3 billion euros — of which small and medium-sized businesses took 60 % of the count and 25 % of the value.
What was hard
The regime attaches to the date the consultation was launched, not to the award: a file started before the switchover and awarded after it stays under the old rules. And the two tiers of the text do not switch on the same day — one day apart between regulation and statute. A note that conflates them builds an environmental section for nothing, or omits it where it is being scored.
All-trades projects, private and public clients alike.
When · Method tested on files from 2017 to 2026.
What we did
We write every seam between two packages as a dated deliverable — who does what, hands over what to whom, under whose check — into the upstream package's specification, and we make it a chapter of the technical submission.
What it produced
A grid of ten interfaces, each with its control point and its reference defect: finished level and upstands between structure and waterproofing, builder's work openings signed off before the pour, fire-stopping attributed to a named party, screed moisture measured before the floor finishes, base tolerances written into the mason's package at the value the carpenter requires.
What was hard
Two contractors can each comply with their own standard and the works still be rejected between them. Five millimetres of flatness defect at the foot become a centimetre out of plumb at the head. And on the industry's most frequent dispute — laying a floor finish on a screed that is still damp — two standards disagree: one reasons in elapsed time, the other in measured moisture. A waiting period met is not a dry substrate.
Organisations where several teams work the same subject, and our own assignments.
When · Practice installed and measured since 2026.
What we did
We keep three separate registers on every assignment: what is done and its evidence, what remains, and what is settled and will not be reopened. Each is updated the moment the thing happens — never at the end, because by then the people have gone and only the document remains.
What it produced
A register of closed decisions carrying, for each one, its reason, its date and the person who took it; an automated check that verifies every evening that no status document still says "to do" about something already done; and the measurement that triggered the method — the word "consolidation" appeared sixty-two times in our own work log before this list existed.
What was hard
A written rule protects nothing: it waits to be read, and nobody reads two hundred rules before acting. What holds is the check that runs by itself. That is what we install with a client — not one more method note.
No client name is published, with or without their consent. We publish no win rate: it is not measured, and an unmeasured figure is not a reference.
Move the date: the applicable version, discrepancy, deadline and official evidence update together.
Legal Replay reconstructs the law that applied when the act came into existence. It ties the evidenced date of a notice, decision, signature or modification to the official version then in effect.
Leadership immediately sees whether the right version was used, whether later wording was applied to earlier facts and which deadline arises from the selected event. The result closes with a reproducible evidence bundle.
Act → version → transition → deadline → evidence
Qualification of the act: parties, transaction, legal order, relevant date and the exact question as at the material time.
Official identifiers for the text (NOR, ELI, CID, LEGIARTI) and for the decision (ECLI, formation, date, publication status).
Validity intervals, amending acts, effective-date provision and transitional rules for the selected text.
Law consolidated over time: version in force, effective date, ChronoLégi and stable identifier.
Comparison between the version in force at the material time, the version cited in the matter and the current version.
Qualified case-law search: court, chamber, subject matter, publication in the Bulletin or Recueil/tables.
Modification routes and tests for a public contract: review clause, then L.2194-1, R.2194-1, R.2194-5, R.2194-7 and R.2194-8 depending on the facts.
Substantial modification: effect on original competition, economic balance, subject matter or awardee.
Triggering fact, which retains its supporting evidence and its hash.
Unproven date, which stays N.F.; version conflict, which becomes a matter for adjudication.
Enforceability and remedy: applicable clause, clause deemed unwritten, nullity, liability, reservation and route of appeal.
Export of the file: query, capture, source, hash, replay policy and selection path.
Legal Replay speeds up qualification and locates the law in force at the material time; it replaces neither legal validation nor the authority to commit. Every conclusion stays attributed, dated and subject to human review.
Four questions we ask on every file in this domain. Each comes from an incident someone paid for — us, or a client before us.
The applicable rules are read on the entity that buys, never on the programme's label. A contract financed by a multilateral lender follows the lender's standard document, which prevails over the national code and imposes its own forms; a nationally funded contract follows the local code; a private international contract follows its own terms, often an amended standard form. The regime also has a date: in France, since 22 August 2026, every public contract carries at least one award criterion taking the environmental characteristics of the bid into account (French public procurement code, article L. 2152-7, as enacted by law no. 2021-1104 of 22 August 2021) — and the regime attaches to the date the consultation was launched, not to the award. We identify the regime, its date and the exact edition of the standard form, before reading the first clause.
If nobody asks it — A perfect bid under the wrong regime, inadmissible before it is even read.
In a standard form, the particular conditions are the real contract: that is where the standard protections are removed — a shortened claim notification period, the dispute board deleted, risk transferred to the contractor. We read them before the general conditions, we list every derogation, and we price the ones that move a risk: a derogation left unpriced is a provision nobody made.
If nobody asks it — A well-founded claim, lost because it was notified one day past the deadline — and the merits are never even examined.
The dispute-resolution clause is read before signing, not after the dispute. A seat in the client's country, its law and its language are three risk dials in the same place. We name them, we check whether the dispute board has been kept, and we price an institutional arbitration from its published scale — a known cost is provided for, an ignored one is simply suffered.
If nobody asks it — Discovering the competent forum, its language and its scale of fees on the day you have to go there.
The processing and transfer of personal data are qualified before the hosting is chosen, not the other way round: national law adds to the specification and to sector rules, and access by a foreign subcontractor is already a transfer. We establish who processes what, on which basis, where the data sits and who may read it, before the first shared workspace is opened.
If nobody asks it — A technically flawless file, and a regulatory breach from the very first upload.
A file rarely draws on a single discipline.