§ Working demonstration
A KARTILYA.PH working demonstration for congressional discussion
These live tests support a practical congressional discussion: what can a bounded legal-information system show today, and what institutional work would a connected national legal record require? They use selected statutes and Supreme Court decisions to exercise current KARTILYA.PH functions. The questions cover structured retrieval, proposition-level statute answers with citations for inspection, case discovery, optional extractive holdings independently verified against the decision text, comparison of two identified decisions, and a fail-closed response when a docket is absent.
§ Live test questions
Run each question against the deployed system
- 01Run this question
Written conventional interest
Which Supreme Court case held that conventional interest must be stipulated in writing?
This tests whether KARTILYA.PH can identify a legal proposition in case law, name the decision, and expose the supporting passage for independent checking.
- 02Run this question
A cited case, summarized
Summarize G.R. No. 225568-70.
This asks the system to locate a known Supreme Court decision, present a concise account, and let the reader check its material statements against the cited record.
- 03Run this question
Two decisions in comparison
Compare G.R. Nos. 221043 and 262944.
This tests whether the demonstration can retrieve two identified decisions and organize a comparison while keeping citations and source passages distinct.
- 04Run this question
Labor-only contracting across decisions
Which Supreme Court decisions discuss labor-only contracting and identify the true employer?
This tests whether KARTILYA.PH can retrieve decisions discussing labor-only contracting and the true employer, present independently verified extractive holdings, and keep each proposition tied to its case and source passage.
- 05Run this question
Unknown docket, clear stop
Summarize G.R. No. 999999.
This control checks whether the system stops when the requested docket is absent from its corpus, states that limit clearly, and avoids inventing a case or holding.