Editorial Standards

Our sources

Every case on LexStreak is built from the primary judgment as delivered by the Court — the authenticated copy or the neutral-citation text. We do not paraphrase secondary reporting. Each case page reproduces the judgment and, where available, links the original PDF so any reader can check us against the source.

Verification before drafting

Extracted text passes an automated fidelity gate before any headnote is written. The gate checks that the reproduced judgment is complete and faithful to the source — no dropped paragraphs, no garbled characters, no truncated, merged or split passages, and no broken paragraph numbering. Text that fails the gate is quarantined for review rather than published.

Use of AI

LexStreak uses AI tools to assist extraction, structuring and drafting. AI is an aid, not the author of record. Every headnote, answer and summary is checked against the source judgment before publication, and nothing is published that has not cleared the fidelity and audit gates. Where confidence in an extraction falls below threshold, the case is held for review rather than released.

Grounding and verifiability

Each proposition in a headnote or answer is tied to the paragraph of the judgment it comes from, so a reader can verify every statement against the Court’s own text. Key passages are reproduced verbatim from the judgment, extracted programmatically rather than retyped.

Faithfulness over embellishment

We report what the Court held, in the Court’s own sense. We do not add commentary the Court did not make, and we mirror only the anonymisation the Court itself applied — we neither add masking nor remove it.

Independence

Our selection and summarisation of judgments are not influenced by any party to a case, by advertisers, or by any outside interest.

Not legal advice

LexStreak is a legal-awareness and study product. Our headnotes and answers are not legal advice and do not substitute for reading the judgment or taking professional counsel.