A record can look complete and still fail.
A decision can be correct and its record still unable to explain why it was reached. Months later, when someone challenges it, the file is what answers: not the reasoning that happened in the room. Decision Reconstruction Risk is the gap between the two, and AI-assisted drafting widens it, because a generated draft reads as finished long before it is defensible.
Below are seven named ways that failure shows up in writing, each with the question that detects it. Nothing here is sent anywhere. There is no registration, no account, no upload, and no form. Open five of your own closed matters and read them against this page.
The seven failure modes
The record reads well and reaches a confident conclusion, but no identifiable source evidence supports it.
Detection questionPoint to the sentence that states the conclusion. Now point to the evidence it rests on. Can you?
A summary or paraphrase stands in for the underlying evidence, so the reader cannot verify the claim.
Detection questionWhere the record says what a document or witness said, can a reader reach the document itself?
Events and evidence are asserted without a dated sequence, so the timeline cannot be reconstructed.
Detection questionCan you put the events in order from the record alone, with dates?
The path from evidence to conclusion is skipped; the record states the result without the connective reasoning.
Detection questionBetween the evidence and the finding, is the reasoning written down or assumed?
The record is definite in tone but vague in substance, giving the appearance of completeness without its content.
Detection questionStrike every confident adjective. Is there anything specific left?
The cited evidence does not actually support the strength of the stated conclusion.
Detection questionDoes the evidence support the finding as written, or only a weaker version of it?
The record cites a rule, precedent, or source that cannot be located or checked from the record itself.
Detection questionTake one cited authority. Could a stranger find it from what the record says?
Check one record now
Take a single closed record. Read it once, then answer the seven questions. Tick a box only where the answer is no or you are unsure. Nothing is transmitted; this runs entirely in your browser.
The five conditions behind the check
The seven modes are symptoms. The five review conditions are what a JRS reader assesses, defined in the JRS Codebook. Each is at Experimental maturity, which is stated plainly rather than implied away.
Could a reader who was not there rebuild the decision from the record alone?
Is the basis for each material claim identified and reachable?
Can the sequence of events and evidence be established from the record?
Is the path from evidence to conclusion visible rather than assumed?
Is the documented evidence enough to support the conclusion drawn?
Take it further
If two or more modes show up in the same file, that record probably cannot explain its own decision under challenge. The next step is a structured read of a small sample against the five conditions, returned as a written finding.
Request a 5-record Decision Reconstruction Diagnostic →
Five de-identified records, read against the five conditions, returned as a written finding. Scope and price agreed in writing before any record is sent. This is a paid test service being offered for the first time, not an established product.
Not what you came for?
If you would rather stress-test the standard itself than have your records read, the research pathway is separate and always will be.
Pressure-test the standard (4-minute evaluation) →
What this page does not do. It does not score your record, and it does not expose the scoring logic or the benchmark answer key used in the validation studies. It is a reading aid. JRS is designed to support organizational governance, auditability, documentation traceability, and review processes that may be relevant to frameworks and regulatory requirements such as the EU AI Act and NIST AI RMF. It does not establish legal or regulatory compliance, and no framework requires it.