> ## Documentation Index
> Fetch the complete documentation index at: https://help.lexfill.ai/llms.txt
> Use this file to discover all available pages before exploring further.

# AI review

> Lex reviews the case and leaves its findings as comments on the form

<Note>
  This page covers the review Lex runs on your clients' intake forms. To check a filing you prepared outside Lexfill, see [Review](/guides/review).
</Note>

## What it is

When a client completes an intake, Lex runs a consistency review across **every form in the case at once** — not one form in isolation — and surfaces what a careful immigration attorney would want to double-check before filing.

Findings don't land in a separate report. Each one arrives as a **comment thread pinned to the exact field it's about**, on the filled form's PDF, where you're already working: a contradiction in the marital history is a comment on that field.

It looks for:

* **Internal contradictions** — dates out of order, histories that overlap or leave gaps, answers that contradict each other.
* **Impossible or implausible values** — a state entered where a city belongs, a date of birth after an entry date, a ZIP that can't match the stated state.
* **Cross-form mismatches** — a name, A-Number or date answered differently on two forms; employment addresses that don't reconcile with the five-year residence history.
* **Anything else worth a second look** before it reaches an adjudicator.

Blank answers are never flagged — only what was actually answered. Values your firm marked sensitive are withheld from the review and are never raised merely for being withheld.

## Running it

Review runs automatically when a client completes their intake. You can also run it yourself from the form PDF toolbar: **Run AI review**, which reports back as it goes — *Lex is working…* while it runs, *AI review passed — no issues found* when the case comes back clean, and the time of the last run once there's been one.

After you've made fixes, **Re-run AI review** updates what changed rather than piling up duplicate threads on the same fields.

## Severity

Every Lex finding carries how serious it is, shown as an icon and color on the thread rather than as a prefix in the text:

|              | Meaning                            |
| ------------ | ---------------------------------- |
| **Critical** | Likely wrong or filing-blocking    |
| **Warning**  | Inconsistent — needs your judgment |
| **Info**     | Worth a look                       |

Every comment Lex leaves also carries a visible **AI** badge, so a finding is never mistaken for a colleague's note.

## The Comments panel

The Comments panel is the review rail for the whole form. It lists every thread with its page number and reply count, and clicking one jumps to its pin.

Two filters stack:

* **Open / Resolved** — what's still outstanding versus what's been handled.
* **All / Team / Lex** — Lex's findings, your colleagues' notes, or both. The Lex and Team chips appear once there are Lex threads to separate out, and each count reflects what clicking it would actually show given the other filter.

## Working a finding

A thread is a conversation, not a checkbox:

* **Reply** to discuss it with your team — every thread is visible to the whole firm.
* **Mention `@Lex`** in a thread and it answers once, with the case in front of it. Summoned replies are capped at five per thread per hour, so a thread can't spiral.
* **Resolve** it when it's handled — the thread records who resolved it, and **Reopen** puts it back.
* **Edit or delete your own replies**, or delete the whole thread, which removes the pin and every reply for the team.

Alongside the threads, one task arrives on the board — pre-filled with context, linked to the client, and counting the open threads — so review findings become trackable work instead of a notification that scrolls away. See [AI-created tasks](/guides/tasks#ai-created-tasks).

## Your team's own comments

Comments aren't only for Lex. Switch on **Comment** in the form toolbar and click anywhere on the document to start a thread of your own — mention a teammate with `@` to pull them in. Mentions and replies both notify, with a deep link straight to the thread.

The same commenting works on an assembled [filing packet](/guides/packets).

## Imported cases

A case [created from uploaded documents](/guides/clients-and-intakes#import-an-existing-matter) is reviewed too, under different rules — because nobody walked the intake, most fields are deliberately blank and every value came from a document:

* Blanks are never held against the case.
* Extraction error is treated as a real possibility — an implausible scanned name, date or number is worth raising.
* **Where two documents disagree, the disagreement is raised and both sources are named.** Nothing is silently resolved in favor of one document.
* A value taken from a document about someone *other* than the client — a spouse's passport in the bundle — is itself worth raising.

<Note>
  AI review is a first pass, not a substitute for your review. It reads answers,
  not the law of the case, and it says when an issue turns on a fact it can't
  see.
</Note>