Anchoring each suspected breach to cited medical literature.

Justine will never invent the governing standard of care. When the edition opens, each suspected deviation will be anchored to a cited reference — a medical-society guideline, a practice parameter, a peer-reviewed study — and matched to the specific act or omission in the record that departs from it. The standard is quoted from real literature for the defendant’s specialty, then set beside the documented conduct so the gap is visible and sourced. The breach opinion remains the retained expert’s to adopt, refine, and attest; Justine assembles the predicate, the expert owns the conclusion.

What MM is designed to do.

1. 01

   Justine is designed to ground every standard-of-care assertion in cited literature — society guidelines, practice parameters, peer-reviewed papers for the defendant’s specialty — and never to state the governing standard from its own authority.

2. 02

   Each cited standard will be matched to the precise act or omission in the record it bears on, so the demand shows the published expectation and the departing conduct on the same line, each traceable to its source.

3. 03

   The framing will respect the respectable-minority doctrine: where more than one accepted practice exists, Justine surfaces the alternatives rather than collapsing the field to a single standard the defense can rebut.

4. 04

   Specialty matters — the standard will be anchored to the defendant provider specialty and care setting, not a generic one, so the comparison is to the practice a like practitioner owed under like circumstances.

5. 05

   The breach opinion stays the consulting or retained expert’s own; Justine assembles the literature-grounded predicate for the expert to revise and attest, and the attorney decides what the demand asserts.

The AI reasons; the attorney decides.