Compare
CiteSafe vs traditional workflows
Wrong yardstick: “Is it Westlaw?” Right yardstick: “Is there an independent gate after the draft?”
Side-by-side
| Job | Traditional | AI generators | CiteSafe |
|---|---|---|---|
| Primary job | Research + citators | Draft / chat | Independent verify after draft |
| Self-grade risk | Low (human + suite) | High (same model grades itself) | None by design |
| Audit artifact | Manual notes | Chat transcript | Statuses + export + report hash |
| Privilege surface | Firm DMS policies | Often full-doc to vendor | Confidential Mode · cite-only default |
| When used | Research / cite check | Drafting | Before file / partner review |
| Treatment depth | KeyCite / Shepard’s class | Thin or marketing-only | Explainable signals · Bench path |
Category clarity
CiteSafe is not mini-Westlaw and not mini-Harvey. Like Stripe is payments infrastructure, CiteSafe is trust infrastructure for AI legal work. Firms keep generators and research suites; CiteSafe owns the verify moment.
Ready to verify a draft?
Free beta · 3 checks/mo · Confidential Mode on by default.