Supreme Mind simulates the opposing damages expert: the likely opinion, cross-examination weaknesses, Daubert challenges to the model, and a settlement range for cartel, overcharge, and monopolization matters, built from the public record.
Individual simulations are $50 each. Firms run on credit plans with volume pricing; example cases are always free.
Industrial-organization experts run six figures, and the case often lives or dies on the regression. You need to see the methodology attack early: the specification the opposing economist will use, where it is vulnerable under Daubert, and how common impact holds up under Comcast, not after the rebuttal report lands. Supreme Mind returns that analysis in ~60 to 90 seconds for $50 per simulation, so the trial team can pressure-test the model before it is served. The credentialed human still testifies; the first weeks of preparation do not have to wait.
Every archetype simulation produces the same structured brief. About 60 to 90 seconds of frontier-model reasoning. Every supporting quote is verified against the public record; what your trial team does with it is up to them.
Written in the archetype's voice and methodological vocabulary. For a cartel-overcharge economist, the brief returns the damages theory the archetype would author: the reduced-form or structural specification it would run, the benchmark and pass-through assumptions it would defend, and the but-for overcharge it would put to the jury.
A ranked list of vulnerabilities a competent opposing economist's counsel would target, with citations to the case file and the archetype's prior public record. Omitted-variable and demand-shock problems. Benchmark contamination. Pass-through assumed uniform across a heterogeneous class. Ordered by leverage.
FRE 702 / Daubert vectors on regression specification and pass-through assumptions, and a common-impact analysis under Comcast v. Behrend. Where the public record shows the archetype's prior methodology has been challenged or excluded, the brief cites the controlling ruling and predicts the likely posture here.
A directional settlement range built from the overcharge estimate applied to affected commerce, with trebling noted and explicit uncertainty. If common impact fails under Comcast, what happens to class exposure? If the model survives Daubert, what is the leverage? A partner-economics input, not a court-facing prediction.
The deliverable is the Exposure & Settlement Brief: four artifacts, every supporting quote verified against the public record.
Set up the case and upload documents. The file is extracted and available to the analysis.
Add one or more de-identified expert archetypes: the opposing expert, or your own retained expert.
Ground the analysis in a real cost pass-through (conspiracy-period prices compared to cost-predicted levels on public FRED input-cost series) plus extraction from your uploaded case documents.
Produce the Exposure & Settlement Brief: likely opinion, cross-examination weaknesses, methodology challenges (Daubert / FRE 702), and settlement-range implications.
Every supporting quote is checked verbatim against public-record sources. Quotes that cannot be verified are dropped, not guessed.
Rehearse the exchange against the archetype before the deposition: question, answer, follow-up.
Put a question to the case file, the complaint, the opposing report, the brief, and get an answer cited to the page, read as the opposing expert would. When the record is silent, it says so instead of guessing.
Attack an opposing report for its weak points, or red-team your own retained expert's draft before it is served.
Export to Word, a Daubert-motion outline, and a cross-examination outline, plus PDF, copy, and email. Deliverable history is retained.
Where warranted, optionally overlay a specific expert's public judicial record. Admin-controlled, not on by default.
Antitrust cases run through a handful of economist types: cartel and common-impact, overcharge and pass-through, monopolization and market-definition, merger effects, and industrial organization. Each archetype is a de-identified composite of public-record antitrust economists, anchored to documented methods and prior testimony. Never a named individual.
Each archetype is a probabilistic synthesis of how a class of antitrust economist testifies, anchored to the public record. The differentiator is grounding: a real cost pass-through analysis comparing conspiracy-period prices to cost-predicted levels on public FRED series, plus extraction from your uploaded case documents.
Supreme Mind never represents an archetype as being a real person. Every archetype is an archetype-class persona, deliberately bounded to the public record.
"I see AI as someone who is available 24/7 and never complains. Fifty, sixty percent of the time, we will get the same questions from the judge as we simulated with AI."
Matter content is handled as privileged material end to end: where it runs, where it is stored, and what is ever written to a log.
Magic-link sign-in tied to a named person: a one-time link to a work email. No password to phish or manage.
Firm accounts with a firm-admin role and self-service team management across multiple devices.
The model runs server-side. The browser never holds an API key.
Inference is US-pinned and routed only through Zero-Data-Retention-eligible endpoints. Matter content is not used to train third-party models.
Per-firm data isolation in a US-region database; uploaded documents in a US-region store.
Metadata-only audit logging; privileged content is never logged. Deleted matters are removed after a 30-day recovery window.
Pilots add SSO, RBAC, immutable audit logging, and a signed Anthropic data processing addendum (DPA) plus Zero-Data-Retention addendum.
We are opening a small number of pilots with senior trial partners at antitrust and competition practices. One named matter, your choice. Public-record data only, grounded on public FRED series. Direct line to the founding team throughout.