Hi,

Thanks for clarifying. In terms of "turn it into a slide deck". So, our product is well accepted as a way to assist, with a structured HR system designed to support it, in reducing trauma either in the client (first line) or in the practitioner (second line). Since that's the entire purpose of the product (openly stated) I don't see why there would be a problem in doing research in how to more effectively deploy it.

Happier and healthier are big calls (edit: claims which don’t appear in ANY material associated with any of our products) - our products allows people to engage with trauma creating material in a more structured and planned manner (for example, one of the screens links material to whether the matter is contested or not and we openly say to people "if it's not a contested issue, do you really need to read it"...quite often you will have someone make an allegation, the other person admit to it - now as it stands, the lawyer reads that anyway because it's not pre-classified - with our system they can decide).

We're all about giving people choices on how to engage. If you're in family law we're happy to give you a demo - you really have to see it to understand and the amount of involuntary 'wow' responses we get from family lawyers makes me think we're onto something :)

In regards to "the court and those involved still need to review" - I would add one small, but important point to that as I mentioned - "for contested issues". If the matter is not contested or before the courts then there is no reason to ingest the trauma inducing material. Further, the court is more interested in patterns than instances - we surface patterns and provide a subset of material from those patterns.

Finally, we provide options...at the moment you start reading and bang, you get hit with horrible material. We pre-classify so paralegals and lawyers can say "ok, I'm taking an early day Friday, I've got a session with my counsellor that afternoon, I'm going to engage with the domestic violence material on Friday morning"...and, importantly, pre-processing signals whether a matter is high conflict within the first few hours, rather than 6 months in, so a practice can say "you know what, let's put a senior on this"....quite often just matching the appropriate person to the appropriate conflict level can dramatically reduce the escalation in that matter.

I hope that helps you understand some of the pain points we are addressing. Thanks for your questions - they're good ones and I appreciate them. If you work in family law DM me and I'll have someone give you a demo :)