MAKE COMMUNITY CHALLENGE · LEGAL AI OS DEMO
Verdicta Legal AI Operating System
Legal is the demo domain — the reusable product is an agentic intake and workflow OS for technical service industries. A WordPress client interface connected to Make scenarios that triage cases, review contracts, generate documents, escalate risk, and monitor output quality through specialist agents and shared data stores.
01
Matter Overview — Route A Example: Legal Triage
Matter ID
#2026-0601-003
Practice Area
Tenant Rights
Sub-type
Security Deposit Recovery
Priority
P2 — High
Status
Escalated to Attorney
Claim Value
$1,850 + potential penalties
Submitted
2026-06-01 · 14:23 UTC
Pipeline Complete
2026-06-01 · 14:26 UTC
Processing Time
2 min 47 sec
02
The Intake — Route A: Tenant Rights (Security Deposit)
👤
Anonymous Client
2026-06-01 · 14:23:08 UTC
"Hi, I moved out of my apartment 65 days ago and my landlord still hasn't returned my $1,850 security deposit. I've sent two follow-up emails with no response at all. My lease agreement clearly states the deposit should be returned within 21 days of vacating. I left the apartment in good condition and have photos. Is there anything I can do to get my money back?"
03
Agent Pipeline — Step by Step
Nia
Intake Coordinator
+0:01
Received and acknowledged the client message. Extracted key facts: departure date, deposit amount ($1,850), lease term (21-day return), elapsed time (65 days), prior contact attempts (2 emails). Created matter record and issued confirmation to client.
Matter #2026-0601-003 created
Acknowledgement sent
Facts extracted: 6
Riya
Case Router
+0:09
Classified matter type using the legal case classifier. Detected tenant rights / landlord dispute. Assessed jurisdiction signals — no state mentioned, flagged for general US guidance. Set priority to P2 based on financial value ($1,850) and duration (65 days overdue). Routed to residential tenancy track.
Routed: Tenant Rights / Small Claims
P2 priority assigned
Jurisdiction: US (unconfirmed state)
Atlas
Document Manager
+0:18
Queried the legal knowledge base for security deposit statutes and tenant rights precedents. Retrieved 4 relevant documents including standard return windows by state, penalty provisions for bad-faith retention, and a demand letter template. Indexed all materials against the matter file.
4 KB documents retrieved
Topics: deposit law, penalties, demand letters
Indexed to matter
Rowan
Legal Researcher
+0:44
Conducted statutory research on security deposit return obligations. Found that most US states require return within 14–30 days. The client's lease specifies 21 days — landlord is now 44 days beyond that. Identified penalty provisions: many states allow 2× to 3× the deposit amount for wilful non-return. Flagged non-response as potential bad-faith indicator.
Statute: 14–30 day return window (state-dependent)
Overdue by 44 days beyond lease term
Potential penalty: 2×–3× deposit ($3,700–$5,550)
Thandi
Compliance Checker
+1:12
Assessed merits and risk factors. Evidence strength rated HIGH: client has documentary evidence (photos, lease with 21-day clause), two unanswered written communications on record, and a clear timeline exceeding both the contractual and statutory deadlines. Identified one risk: jurisdiction unconfirmed — state-specific penalty multiplier not yet calculable.
Merit rating: Strong
Evidence: Photos, lease, email trail
Risk: State not confirmed
Noah
Document Drafter
+1:50
Generated a structured demand letter outline addressed to the landlord. Incorporated: the specific deposit amount, applicable lease clause (§4.2 — 21 day return), elapsed time (65 days), statutory references (pending state confirmation), a 7-day response deadline, and notice of intent to pursue small claims court. Letter formatted for attorney review and signature.
Demand letter outline generated
Statutory refs included (state TBC)
Format: ready for attorney review
Kairo
Quality Reviewer
+2:31
Performed final quality review and escalation assessment. Pipeline outputs verified complete. Triggered escalation threshold check — matter value of $1,850 (plus potential 2×–3× penalties up to $5,550) exceeds the $1,000 autonomous threshold. Escalated to attorney queue. All outputs packaged into matter file and flagged for attorney review within 24 hours.
Escalated: value exceeds $1,000 threshold
All pipeline checks passed
SLA: attorney review within 24h
Sasha
Priority Manager
+2:47
Finalised matter priority and filed to the attorney review queue. Confirmed P2 — High designation. Matter added to attorney dashboard with all supporting documents, research notes, and the demand letter draft. Notification dispatched to the duty attorney. Pipeline complete.
Filed: P2 attorney queue
Attorney notified
Pipeline complete · 2m 47s
04
Under the Hood — Make.com Automation
A legal AI operating system built from Make scenarios
Verdicta is not a single chatbot. The main scenario acts as the orchestrator, specialist agents handle legal work, data stores preserve shared state, and supporting scenarios add review queues, monitoring, guardrails, and follow-up. The screenshots below show the actual operating layer.
PerceiveWordPress intake, documents, URLs, and client context
ReasonClassifier, research, review, drafting, and synthesis agents
ActRoute A/B/C, call tools, write records, return results
ObserveDashboard, QA audit, stale intake monitor, review queue
STAGE 01
Main Intake
WordPress submits structured chat data and files to the webhook, then polls for the final result.
Webhooks
Data Store
JSON Parse
STAGE 02
Route Selection
Classifier selects legal case triage, contract review, or NDA generation based on the structured matter.
Claude AI
Router
HTTP
STAGE 03
Specialist Work
Specialist agents use playbooks, review matrices, templates, knowledge, and subscenario tools.
KB Search
Claude AI
Data Store
STAGE 04
Output & Operations
Results return to WordPress, escalations enter review, and supporting scenarios monitor quality and status.
Claude AI
Router
Email
SCREENSHOT 1
Make Scenario Canvas
Full pipeline overview — all modules visible
01 · Scenario canvas — intake to escalation pipeline
SCREENSHOT 2
Execution Detail View
Bundle data flowing through modules
02 · Execution detail — bundle data at each module
SCREENSHOT 3
Data Store — Matter Record
Structured matter data created by Nia
03 · Data Store — matter record written to persistent storage
ROUTE B
Contract Review Intake
Structured Route B submission from WordPress
04 - Route B client flow
ROUTE B RUN
Contract Review Run
Make execution trace for review analysis
05 - Route B execution
ROUTE C
NDA Generation Intake
Structured Route C submission from WordPress
06 - Route C intake
ROUTE C RUN
NDA Generation Run
Make execution trace for drafting branch
07 - Route C execution
DELIVERY
Generated NDA Result
WordPress result delivery and follow-up state
08 - Generated result in WordPress
DOCUMENT
Printable NDA Draft
WordPress document output with save-to-PDF path
09 - Document delivery
05
System Outputs — Documents Generated
Triage Summary Report
Generated by Thandi · Matter #2026-0601-003
MATTER CLASSIFICATION
Practice areaTenant Rights
Sub-typeSecurity deposit — non-return
Claim value$1,850 principal + penalties TBC
PriorityP2 — High
EVIDENCE ASSESSMENT
Merit ratingStrong
Lease clause§4.2 — 21 day return confirmed
Overdue by44 days beyond lease, 65 total
Physical evidenceMove-out photos (client held)
Written record2 unanswered emails on file
STATUTORY RESEARCH
US state laws require security deposit return within 14–30 days. The client's contractual deadline of 21 days has been exceeded by 44 days. Many states impose penalties of 2× to 3× the deposit for bad-faith non-return. Failure to respond to written requests is frequently cited as evidence of bad faith.
RECOMMENDED NEXT STEPS
- Attorney to confirm applicable state law and calculate maximum penalty exposure
- Review and sign demand letter prepared by Noah
- If no response within 7 days: file small claims court application
- Preserve all photographic and written evidence
Demand Letter — Draft Outline
Generated by Noah · Pending attorney review & signature
[Date]
[Landlord Full Name]
[Landlord Address]
RE: Demand for Return of Security Deposit — [Property Address]
[Landlord Full Name]
[Landlord Address]
RE: Demand for Return of Security Deposit — [Property Address]
Dear [Landlord Name],
I am writing on behalf of my client, who vacated the above property on approximately [Vacate Date]. Pursuant to Section 4.2 of the executed lease agreement, the security deposit of $1,850.00 was due to be returned within 21 days of vacating — by [Due Date].
I am writing on behalf of my client, who vacated the above property on approximately [Vacate Date]. Pursuant to Section 4.2 of the executed lease agreement, the security deposit of $1,850.00 was due to be returned within 21 days of vacating — by [Due Date].
As of the date of this letter, 65 days have elapsed and the deposit has not been returned, nor has any itemised deduction statement been provided. Two written requests sent on [Date 1] and [Date 2] have gone unanswered.
Under [State] [Applicable Statute], a landlord who wilfully fails to return a security deposit within the statutory period is liable for the full deposit amount plus a penalty of up to [2× / 3×] the deposit ($3,700–$5,550) together with court costs and reasonable attorney's fees.
You are hereby demanded to return the full deposit of $1,850.00 within 7 days of the date of this letter. Failure to comply will result in the immediate filing of a small claims court application seeking the deposit, statutory penalties, and all associated costs.
Status
Awaiting attorney review
State law
To be confirmed by attorney
Bracketed fields
Require client confirmation
Attorney Escalation Email — Human Review Required
Auto-dispatched to the duty attorney when an agent flags high risk · Route A · Civil Litigation matter
CLIENT AND MATTER
SUMMARY
You are facing a High Court summons in the Western Cape claiming R1,000,000 for breach of a written contract for 100 cubic metres of ready-mix concrete, delivered on 15 February 2025. The defendant must file a Notice of Intention to Defend within 10 court days of service, and then a plea within 20 court days after defence is filed. Because a summons has been issued, there is an urgent procedural deadline risk (default judgment if deadlines are missed). The likely forum is the Western Cape High Court, with potential defences including non-delivery, defective supply, set-off, prescription, or dispute over the contracting parties. Next: verify service dates, gather the contract, delivery notes, invoices, and proof of demand to assess merits and deadlines.
URGENCY BASIS
The summons sets express deadlines: 10 court days to file a notice of intention to defend, and 20 court days after defence to plead or respond. High urgency due to risk of default judgment if deadlines are missed; verify service date and compute deadlines precisely.
DEADLINE ANALYSIS
Known dates: summons dated 19 February 2026; delivery date alleged 15 February 2025; contract date 1 February 2025; 10-day defence notice from service date; 20 days after defence to plead. Uncertainty: exact service date of the summons (which starts the clock); whether this is a combined summons affecting any declaration timeline; whether court days vs calendar days apply in the Western Cape division. Action: obtain the sheriff's return or service receipt to pinpoint the service date and recalculate deadlines precisely.
PROCEDURAL POSTURE
High Court civil action with a pending defence window; defendant must respond to the summons and advance a defence or other pleading.
Why this matters
No legal advice leaves the system on high-risk matters without a human lawyer in the loop
06
Supporting Scenarios — Governance, Review, and Follow-up
REVIEW QUEUE
Escalation Gate Scenario
Router module — value threshold decision
04 · Escalation gate — value threshold routing logic
SUBSCENARIO TOOL
Execution History Log
Make.com execution log showing all runs
05 · Execution history — successful run log
GUARDRAIL
Guardrail MVP
Policy check, parsed verdict, logged event, and returned decision
12 - Guardrail scenario - governance layer for risky or out-of-scope requests
OPS MONITOR
Ops Monitor
Scheduled monitoring of escalations and stale intakes
13 - Ops monitor - scheduled observability for unresolved escalations and stale intake records
QA AUDIT
Quality & Compliance Audit
Recent outputs aggregated, audited by an AI agent, and saved as QA reports
14 - QA audit - governance checks on completed AI legal outputs
FOLLOW-UP
Follow-up Assistant
Post-result questions handled by a dedicated follow-up agent
15 - Follow-up assistant - post-result interaction without rerunning the full intake pipeline
07
Run Metrics
2:47
End-to-end
processing time
processing time
34
Make modules
triggered
triggered
8
AI model
calls made
calls made
4
KB documents
retrieved
retrieved
7
Agents
engaged
engaged
2
Documents
generated
generated