Ten archetypes spanning event-study econometrics, forensic accounting, fairness opinions, governance, and pay economics. Each simulation returns a structured strategic artifact (likely opinion, cross-examination weaknesses, methodology challenges, settlement-range implications) in ~60 to 90 seconds.
Individual simulations are $50 each. Firms run on credit plans with volume pricing; example cases are always free.
The strategic artifact a senior expert produces in the first weeks of an engagement (likely opinion in the archetype's voice, ranked cross-examination weaknesses, methodology challenges keyed to controlling case law, and settlement-range implications) is now generable in ~60 to 90 seconds for $50 per simulation. Trial teams that adopt the artifact first get the structural advantage. Defense or plaintiff. The court still requires a credentialed human at deposition and trial; that part of the workflow stays human. The first 50% does not.
Every archetype simulation produces the same structured output. About 60 to 90 seconds of frontier-model reasoning. The strategic artifact a senior expert builds across the first weeks of an engagement, delivered in seconds. What your trial team does with it is up to them.
Written in the archetype's voice and methodological vocabulary. For a defense event-study econometrician on a Halliburton II matter, the artifact returns the rebuttal opinion the archetype would author, including the framework it would invoke (Cammer/Krogman), the analytical choices it would make (multi-day windows, leakage adjustments), and the conclusions it would defend at deposition.
A ranked list of vulnerabilities a competent opposing attorney would target, with citations to the case file and to the archetype's prior public record. Post-hoc window selection. Confounding-events gaps. Leakage doctrine under Bricklayers. The artifact orders the weaknesses by leverage and grounds each in controlling authority.
FRE 702 / Daubert / Frye attack vectors keyed to documented challenges of similar named exemplars. General acceptance, error rate, peer review, Daubert factor mapping. Where the public record shows the archetype's prior methodology has been challenged or excluded, the artifact cites the controlling ruling and predicts the likely posture in the current matter.
A directional signal on how the archetype's expected testimony shifts the settlement distribution, with explicit uncertainty. If the methodology is excluded, what is the verdict-band shift? If it survives Daubert, what is the leverage at settlement? The output is a partner-economics input, not a court-facing prediction.
Every Section 10(b) case retains a financial economist. Most retain a forensic accountant. Delaware Chancery practice runs through governance, fairness-opinion, and pay-economics experts. The ten archetypes below cover roughly 85% of expert witness types retained in BLB&G-tier cases.
Each archetype is a probabilistic synthesis of how a class of expert testifies. Where a named expert's public corpus is large enough to support precise personalization, the personalization is precise. Where it is not, the archetype falls back to the methodology class.
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."
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 live-market event study (an OLS market model on real market prices around the disclosure dates) 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.
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 top-tier plaintiff securities firms. One named matter, your choice. Public-record training data only. Direct line to the founding team throughout.