Does the cited exhibit say what the draft says?
We put three unsupported claims alongside two supported ones, then ran one component of the actual $199 kit against that small fictional record. The component compares each sentence with its cited source and tags it as a fact in an exhibit, a fact in a support letter, counsel characterization, or unsupported.
Only that this component produced the five findings shown below on this selected synthetic excerpt. It is not a test of general accuracy, a full kit run, an eligibility assessment, a legal-source check, a client outcome, or a measure of time saved. No customer files were used or collected.
D1: outside-company adoption
Elena Marlow's diagnostic method is used by twelve independent companies across the field. Exhibit E1 documents that adoption.
Cited exhibit · E1, paragraph 3“This note reports internal adoption only. It contains no count or verification of use by companies outside Northstar Database Lab.”
Resulting findingU — unsupported. The cited exhibit supports only internal use. It does not support either twelve companies or independent adoption across the field.
D2: completed peer reviews
Marlow completed six peer reviews for the Journal of Distributed Systems Practice in 2025. Exhibit E2 confirms those reviews.
Cited exhibit · E2, paragraph 1 and record note“We invite Elena Marlow to review manuscript JDSP-25-184.”
“No acceptance message, completed-review confirmation or other review correspondence is included in this excerpt.”
Resulting findingU — unsupported. One invitation does not document acceptance, completion, or six completed reviews.
D3: quotation check
Her supervisor wrote, “Elena's method is now the industry standard.” See Exhibit E3, paragraph 2.
Cited letter · E3, paragraph 2“Elena's method made our internal incident reviews easier to organize. I have not assessed its use outside our employer.”
Resulting findingU — unsupported. The quoted words do not appear in the cited letter. The source is limited to internal use and expressly says the author did not assess use outside the employer.
D4: support-letter fact
Marlow designed the diagnostic method while working on the database reliability team. See Exhibit E3, paragraph 1.
Cited letter · E3, paragraph 1“Elena designed the diagnostic method while working on our database reliability team.”
Resulting findingL — supported by a letter. The sentence matches the supervisor letter. No independent corroborating exhibit appears in this selected excerpt.
D5: internal use
Two departments at her employer use the diagnostic method. See Exhibit E1, paragraph 2.
Cited exhibit · E1, paragraph 2“The production database department and the customer-support diagnostics department now use the method. Both departments are part of Northstar Database Lab.”
Resulting findingF — supported by an exhibit. The sentence is supported as internal employer use. The finding does not expand it into adoption outside the employer.
What happens next in a real review
The component logs unsupported language instead of repairing it by guessing. Counsel decides whether to revise a sentence, obtain more evidence, or make another legal or filing decision. Those decisions are outside this demonstration.
The EB-1A Petition Second Review Kit is $199 and includes the source-to-claim component used here. It is a downloadable workflow for U.S. immigration lawyers and law firms. ExtraordinaryOS does not receive petitions, exhibits, or client identity.