Fictional demonstration data
Northstar County, Halvorsen Office Systems, every person named and every document shown on this page are invented for demonstration. They refer to no real jurisdiction, agency, company, person, election, contract or allegation. Nothing here is a finding about anyone.
Interactive demo · Fictional case
Northstar County Equipment Procurement Review
Seven records describe one purchase of 240 workstations. They do not entirely agree with one another. This page walks through what an analyst sees at each step — and, at every step, where the statement on screen came from.
- Case template
- Public Procurement Review
- Records
- 7
- Objective
- Reconcile what was ordered, invoiced and received
- Status
- Two differences open
Delivery schedule
Halvorsen Office Systems commits to delivery of all 240 units on September 10, 2024 to the receiving dock at 14 Ridgeway Avenue.
Installation will be carried out between September 11 and September 17, 2024, in floor order beginning with floor 2.
The delivery date stated above assumes purchase order issuance no later than August 9, 2024.
All 240 workstations were delivered to Building C in September 2024.
The September delivery is evidenced; the quantity is not.
+Supporting(3)
−Conflicting(1)
Showing Vendor Proposal.pdf, p. 4. Citation is supporting.
This is the case workspace in miniature. Select a citation to move the highlight in the document, select a record to open it, or hover an edge in the graph to name the relationship it represents.
Step one · What the analyst notices
Two records give a different delivery date.
Nothing in the case flags this as wrongdoing. It flags that two documents state different things about the same event, and shows you both.
The vendor proposal commits to September 10. The committee minutes record September 18 and note that no formal amendment was tabled. Either the schedule changed and the change was documented somewhere not yet in this case, or it changed without being documented. The record set does not settle which — so the difference stays open and is marked as needing follow-up.
These records appear inconsistent regarding the reported delivery date. No record in this case documents an agreed change to the contract schedule.
Stated value
September 10, 2024
Halvorsen Office Systems commits to delivery of all 240 units on September 10, 2024.
Stated value
September 18, 2024
The Facilities Manager stated that delivery of the 240 workstations is scheduled for September 18, 2024.
Jun 14, 2024
Purchase request submitted
S1 p. 1
Aug 2, 2024
Notice of award issued
S3 p. 1
Sep 10, 2024
Delivery date committed in proposal
S2 p. 4⚠ Sources differ
Sep 18, 2024
Delivery date stated to committee
S4 p. 14⚠ Sources differ
Sep 21, 2024
Delivery received — 228 of 240 units
S6 p. 1
Step two · Where it sits in the sequence
The disputed date appears twice, marked as disputed.
The timeline does not silently choose one date over the other. Both stated dates appear, both are marked conflicting, and both keep the citation that produced them.
Read down the chronology and the shape of the question changes: the award was issued on August 2, delivery was committed for September 10, stated to the committee as September 18, and recorded as received on September 21 — with 228 of 240 units. The date difference is not the only thing that needs an explanation.
Step three · Asking the case
A question answered only from these seven records.
The copilot has no access to the open web and no memory of any real procurement. It reads this case's excerpts and cites them.
Notice what the answer does not do. It does not decide which date is correct, it does not explain why they differ, and it does not characterise the difference. It states each record's position, attaches the citation, and reports how many citations survived verification against the retrieved excerpts.
Which records disagree about the delivery date?
The available sources conflict on this point.
The vendor proposal commits to delivery of all 240 units on September 10, 2024 S2 p. 4.
The committee minutes record delivery as scheduled for September 18, 2024, and record that no formal amendment was approved S4 p. 14.
The receiving report records the delivery arriving on September 21, 2024 S6 p. 1.
3 citations verified against the retrieved excerpts. Unverifiable citations are removed before an answer is shown.
| Row | Invoice | Vendor | Qty | Amount |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 219 | INV-4469 | Meridian Facilities | 30 | $21,900.00 |
| 220 | INV-4470 | Northstar Print | 48 | $3,264.00 |
| 221 | INV-4471 | Halvorsen Office Systems | 240 | $178,080.00 |
| 222 | INV-4472 | Halvorsen Office Systems | 1 | $0.00 |
Step four · Opening the citation
A spreadsheet citation lands on the row.
“Sheet ‘Invoices,’ row 221” is not a label. It is an address, and following it opens the register at that row with the row highlighted.
Row 221 records 240 units invoiced at $178,080.00. The receiving report records 228 units received and 12 back-ordered. Both numbers are now traceable to an exact location in a specific record — which is the difference between a finding and an assertion.
Step five · The evidence behind one claim
Every conclusion stays connected to its source.
Select any excerpt to open its full citation: the record, the exact location inside it, the verbatim passage, its relationship to the claim, and the confidence of the extraction.
Claim
All 240 workstations were delivered to Building C in September 2024.
- Supporting
- 2
- Conflicting
- 1
- Context
- 1
“Expected quantity: 240 units. Quantity received: 228 units. Quantity back-ordered: 12 units.”
Shown verbatim from the stored excerpt — the passage displayed is the passage that was indexed.
The claim reads “partially supported” because that is what the citations add up to — two supporting, one conflicting, one context. Change the evidence and the status changes with it.
Run it yourself
The same six steps, on your own records.
This is the whole workflow. Nothing here requires a schema, a taxonomy or a data-preparation step first.
- 01
Create the case
Name the case and choose the Public Procurement Review template. The template sets the objective — trace a procurement from request through award, invoice and delivery — and the focus areas the analysis will pay attention to.
- 02
Upload the records
Add the purchase request, the vendor proposal, the notice of award, the committee minutes, the invoice register and the receiving report. Point at the county procurement page by URL, and paste your own interview notes as a source.
- 03
Build the case map
Run extraction. Claims, dated events and named parties come out of the excerpts, each carrying the page, sheet row or section it came from. Read the claim ledger before reading anything else.
- 04
Inspect a difference
Open the delivery-date difference. Read both excerpts side by side, open each in its original record, and decide whether a further document explains it. Mark it needs follow-up if it does not.
- 05
Ask a source-backed question
Ask the copilot which records disagree about the delivery date, then check each citation it returns by opening it. The answer is only as good as the passages behind it — so read them.
- 06
Export the dossier
Assemble the brief, include the claims and differences you have reviewed, and export it as Markdown or PDF — or publish a read-only evidence room containing only the items you selected.
Fictional demonstration data
Everything on this page — the county, the vendor, the officials, the invoice numbers and the documents — is invented. It exists to show how the product behaves, not to describe anything that happened. CaseSignal organises and cites records. Its outputs are research assistance, not findings of fact, legal conclusions or determinations about any person or organization. Verify every citation against the underlying record before publication.
Start your own case.
Bring one record set. CaseSignal will show you what it says, where it disagrees with itself, and what is still missing.