Jobs to Be Done

Framework

Each job follows the structure:

When [situation], I want to [motivation], so I can [desired outcome].

Jobs are organized by persona (Client, Attorney) and type (Functional, Emotional, Social). Each job includes the current painful alternative and how Intactus addresses it.

Job Index

Client Jobs

Attorney Jobs

Client Jobs

Clients are individuals involved in legal matters where digital evidence is relevant: parties in custody disputes, victims of harassment or stalking, employees in hostile work environments, defendants in criminal cases, or anyone whose case involves content that exists online or in digital communications.

The Central Insight: The Documentation Burden Is a Barrier to Action

Before the individual jobs, the overarching problem must be stated clearly:

People who need legal help often delay, under-document, or don't pursue action at all, because the evidence collection process itself is too overwhelming.

This applies across practice areas and situations:

• A mom in a custody battle has 6 months of texts from her ex showing he's consistently late for pickups, cancels visitation, and makes decisions about the kids without consulting her. The pattern is clear to her, but documenting 400+ messages to prove it to a judge feels impossible on top of working, parenting, and managing the emotional weight of the divorce.
• A harassment victim has threatening emails, obsessive blog posts, and social media messages across multiple platforms. Every screenshot means re-reading content that is degrading, frightening, or manipulative. The documentation process is retraumatizing.
• An employee in a hostile work environment has a year of discriminatory emails, inappropriate Slack messages, and witnesses who posted about incidents on social media. They know the pattern exists but can't face the project of assembling it, especially while still going to work every day.
• A criminal defense client needs to gather social media posts, communications, and public records that support their case, but they're dealing with the stress of charges, bail conditions, and the uncertainty of their future. Methodical evidence gathering isn't where their head is at.

In every case, the legal system asks people to:

• Read through every relevant message (re-experiencing stress, conflict, or trauma each time)
• Screenshot or export each one individually (tedious, error-prone, incomplete)
• Organize them chronologically (a task requiring sustained attention they don't have)
• Do this across texts, emails, social media, voicemails, and websites (fragmented across apps and platforms)
• Keep doing it for weeks or months as the situation continues (relentless)
• Then present it all coherently to an attorney (who has limited time to receive it)

The emotional and cognitive tax of this process is enormous. The sheer volume is daunting: "I have 400 text messages and I can't face going through them." The result is that clients give up, capture only a fraction of the evidence, or never contact an attorney in the first place.

Intactus exists to eliminate the documentation burden entirely. The client's job is to dump everything in (texts, emails, URLs, screenshots, audio, files) with as little engagement as possible. The system handles extraction, organization, classification, and preservation. The client never has to read through their evidence. The attorney and the platform do that work.

This is not a convenience feature. It is the difference between people taking action and people giving up.

Functional Jobs

C1. Dump everything in without sorting through it

When I have evidence scattered across my text messages, emails, social media, and other apps, I want to get it all into the system as fast as possible without having to read, review, or organize any of it, so I can hand the burden to my attorney and the platform instead of carrying it myself.

Current alternative: Manually open each text thread, read each message to decide if it's relevant, screenshot it, save it, repeat. Do the same for emails. Do the same for social media. The process takes hours, forces re-engagement with traumatic content, and produces an incomplete, disorganized result that the attorney then has to re-process anyway.

Multi-modal capture in Intactus:

The design principle: every capture method should be completable in under 30 seconds with no reading required. Forward the email. Export the thread. Paste the URL. Upload the file. Done. The system does the rest.

C2. Capture evidence before it disappears

When relevant content exists online that could be deleted, edited, or hidden at any time, I want to preserve it immediately and completely, so I can prove what existed even if it's later changed or removed.

This applies to any content that has evidentiary value and a limited lifespan:

• An ex-spouse's social media post showing them partying during their claimed "parenting time"
• A defamatory blog post that could be taken down once the author realizes they're being sued
• A witness's public statement that contradicts their later testimony
• An employer's job posting that proves they replaced someone based on a protected characteristic
• Threatening or harassing messages on a platform where the sender can delete them

Current alternative: Manually screenshot each post, one at a time, hoping you don't miss anything. Race against deletion. Miss metadata, context, and surrounding content. Forget to capture something until it's gone.

Intactus: Client submits a URL through the portal with one tap. The platform captures the full page (screenshot, HTML, images, metadata) in seconds. Automated monitoring watches for new content and captures it without the client having to check. Nothing slips through. The client doesn't have to race against deletion because the system is already watching.

C3. Document ongoing behavior without it consuming my life

When I need to build a record of a pattern over time (whether it's ongoing harassment, a co-parent's repeated neglect, workplace discrimination, or any situation where the pattern is the evidence), I want to capture every incident as it happens with minimal effort, so I can build a comprehensive record without the documentation process becoming another burden on top of an already difficult situation.

The key insight: in many legal matters, no single incident is decisive. It's the pattern that matters: the frequency, the escalation, the consistency. Proving a pattern requires sustained documentation over weeks or months. That's where clients fall off.

Examples:

• A co-parent who is consistently 30 minutes late for every pickup; no single instance is actionable, but 4 months of documented lateness establishes a pattern of disregard
• Workplace microaggressions that individually seem minor but collectively demonstrate a hostile environment
• An ex who contacts through new accounts, new email addresses, new platforms; the volume and persistence matter more than any one message
• A neighbor dispute that escalates gradually from passive-aggressive notes to property damage to threats

Current alternative: Keep a handwritten log. Remember to screenshot every incident. Try to maintain a spreadsheet with dates and descriptions. Miss incidents because you're exhausted, overwhelmed, or simply living your life. Lose momentum after the first two weeks. The record is incomplete and the pattern, the very thing you need to prove, is invisible.

Intactus: Automated monitoring captures new public content as it appears; the client doesn't have to check. For private communications (texts, emails, DMs), the capture methods are designed for speed, not review: forward the email, export the thread, upload the screenshot. The client can log a brief incident note ("he was 45 minutes late again for pickup") through the portal without having to write a detailed narrative. The cumulative record builds itself over weeks and months. The timeline and pattern emerge automatically. The client never has to assemble it or re-read the evidence to see the arc. The system holds the full picture so the client doesn't have to hold it in their head.

C4. Keep evidence secure and private

When I'm collecting evidence related to a sensitive legal matter (abuse, harassment, custody), I want to store it somewhere my adversary cannot access, tamper with, or discover, so I can preserve my evidence safely regardless of what happens to my devices.

Current alternative: Screenshots live on the client's phone, accessible to an abusive partner who monitors their device. Files on a shared computer can be deleted. Cloud storage can be compromised if the adversary knows the password. Physical USBs get lost.

Intactus: Evidence is stored off-device in an encrypted cloud vault. The client's device retains nothing after upload. Access requires authentication. The adversary cannot access, alter, or detect the evidence. Tamper-evident hashing proves if anyone attempts modification.

C5. Capture everything and let the system figure out what matters

When I'm experiencing something that feels wrong but I'm not sure what matters legally, I want to just capture everything without filtering or judging it myself, so I can make sure I'm not missing evidence that my attorney needs.

Current alternative: Clients self-censor their evidence collection because they don't know what matters. They capture the obvious death threat but miss the pattern of 47 "friendly" messages that establishes obsessive contact. They don't realize a social media post contradicts a sworn financial disclosure. They think "this one probably doesn't matter" and skip it, losing evidence that turns out to be critical.

Intactus: The platform encourages over-capture. Export the entire text thread, not just the "bad" messages. Connect the whole email inbox, not just the scary emails. The system captures everything and classifies it automatically: threatening, financial, custody-relevant, harassing, contradictory. The attorney sees the full picture and can identify legally significant evidence that the client would never have flagged. The client's only job is to dump it in.

C6. Understand my case without running up attorney fees

When I have questions about my case (what's happening now, what the evidence shows, what's coming next, what a document means), I want to get answers without scheduling a call or sending an email that costs me $300/hour, so I can stay informed and make better decisions without the meter running every time I need to understand something.

Clients constantly hold back questions because every interaction with their attorney feels expensive. "Is this normal?" "What does this filing mean?" "When is my next hearing?" "What did that email from opposing counsel actually say?" These are legitimate questions that help clients participate in their own case, but the cost of asking them creates a chilling effect. Clients stay in the dark, feel anxious about their case status, and then make uninformed decisions or fail to act when action is needed.

Current alternative: Call the attorney ($300-500/hour, often with a minimum billing increment). Email and wait days for a response (still billable). Google the question and get generic, potentially wrong information. Ask ChatGPT and create discoverable, non-privileged documents (per Heppner). Ask a friend who "went through something similar" and get anecdotal advice. Or just don't ask and live with the uncertainty.

Intactus: A "Chat with My Case" feature within the client portal. The client asks questions about their case and gets answers grounded in their actual evidence and case timeline, not generic legal information. Responses are contextual, based on what's in the vault. "What did the opposing party say in that October email?" "How many times has he been late for pickup?" "What's the timeline of events leading up to the restraining order?" The AI retrieves from the evidence vault and responds factually, clearly marking that it is not legal advice. The client stays informed, feels in control, and saves their attorney's time for the questions that actually require legal judgment.

Critical distinction: This feature provides factual case understanding, not legal advice. "Here are the 12 instances of late pickup documented in your evidence" is factual retrieval. "You should file for full custody" is legal advice. The system does the former, never the latter. And because it operates within the platform's privileged infrastructure, the client's questions and the system's responses are protected. Consumer AI tools offer no such protection.

C7. Communicate securely with my attorney without the overhead

When I need to share something with my attorney, ask a quick question, or get an update, I want to do it quickly and securely through a channel that's part of my case record, so I can stay in touch without playing phone tag, sending sensitive details over unencrypted email, or paying for a full consultation every time.

Current alternative: Call the office and leave a voicemail (attorney calls back hours or days later, both parties bill for the phone tag). Send an email with sensitive case details over unencrypted Gmail (insecure, not part of any organized case record). Text screenshots to the attorney's personal phone (unprofessional, insecure, impossible to find later). Drive to the office for a meeting that could have been a message (expensive for the client, time-consuming for both).

Intactus: Secure messaging built into the client portal. The client sends a message, attaches evidence, or asks a question. It's encrypted, timestamped, and part of the case record. The attorney or staff responds when available. No phone tag. No sensitive information over unencrypted email. No scheduling overhead. Quick questions get quick answers. Longer discussions can be flagged for a call. Everything is documented and searchable. If the client said something important six weeks ago, the attorney can find it.

The communication channel also reduces the attorney's administrative overhead: no more "can you resend that screenshot?" or "which email were you referring to?" because everything is linked to the evidence vault. The client can reference a specific piece of evidence in their message, and the attorney sees it in context.

C8. Understand and research my case without creating liability

When I want to understand my legal situation better (research the relevant laws, understand what my evidence proves, think through my options), I want to do that research safely within a protected environment, so I can be an informed participant in my own case without accidentally creating discoverable documents or waiving privilege.

Most clients research their cases. They google their charges, their custody rights, their options for protective orders. They ask ChatGPT to explain what a motion means. They type their situation into Reddit. Every one of these actions creates a trail (search history, AI chat logs, forum posts) that is potentially discoverable and definitely not privileged.

After Heppner, anything a client puts into a consumer AI tool is explicitly not privileged. A client who asks ChatGPT "can my ex get custody if I can prove he's been drinking around the kids?" has just created a document that opposing counsel could theoretically obtain.

Current alternative: Google (creates search history, returns generic results). Consumer AI tools like ChatGPT or Claude (creates non-privileged, potentially discoverable records per Heppner). Reddit or forums (public, non-privileged, potentially embarrassing). Ask the attorney every question ($300-500/hour). Or just don't research and remain uninformed about their own legal situation.

Intactus: Case research within the platform is conducted through the privileged attorney-client infrastructure. The client can ask the system about their evidence, their timeline, relevant legal concepts, and what different outcomes might look like, all within the same protected environment that houses their evidence. The client's queries are not exposed to third-party AI providers under consumer terms. The interaction stays within the attorney's toolset, under enterprise terms with zero data retention.

This empowers clients to be active, informed participants in their cases, which attorneys actually want. Informed clients make better decisions, provide better evidence, and have more realistic expectations. And they do it without the liability risk of unprotected external research.

Emotional Jobs

C9. Not have to re-read and relive the evidence

When I have hundreds of difficult, stressful, or upsetting messages that need to be documented, I want to get them into the system without reading through each one, so I can build my case without the documentation process taking an emotional toll.

Current alternative: Every screenshot requires reading the message. Every email forwarded means seeing the subject line and first few lines. Building a timeline means reviewing months of conflict chronologically. For harassment and abuse cases, this is retraumatizing. For contentious custody and divorce cases, it means re-engaging with every bitter exchange. For workplace disputes, it means reliving the hostility while still going to work every day. Some stop documenting. Some stop pursuing legal action entirely.

Intactus: Export the thread. Forward the emails. Paste the URL. The system ingests the raw content and the client never has to open it again. The attorney and the AI review the content; the client doesn't. Transcription of voicemails means the client doesn't have to listen to difficult audio a second time. The emotional exposure is reduced to the minimum physical actions needed to get the evidence from the source into the system.

This is the most important emotional job. Eliminating the requirement for clients to deeply engage with their own evidence removes the single biggest barrier to documentation and, by extension, to taking legal action.

C10. Feel believed and taken seriously

When I bring my case to an attorney, I want to present organized, credible, complete evidence, so I can feel that my experience is documented, real, and taken seriously.

Current alternative: Clients feel embarrassed showing up with a disorganized phone full of screenshots. They worry their attorney doesn't understand the full scope. They feel like they're not being believed because they can't articulate the pattern coherently. They know there's a pattern but can't prove it because their documentation is incomplete.

Intactus: The client's evidence is organized, timestamped, classified, and presented with a clear timeline. The attorney sees the full picture immediately, including patterns the client couldn't articulate. The evidence speaks for itself, validating the client's experience with documented facts. The client doesn't have to convince anyone of the pattern; the system shows it.

C11. Feel safe that the evidence is protected

When I've captured evidence relevant to my case, I want to know it's permanently preserved and cannot be destroyed, so I can stop worrying about the evidence and focus on my life and my case.

Current alternative: Constant anxiety. "Did I save that screenshot?" "What if he deletes the post?" "What if my phone breaks?" The burden of evidence preservation falls entirely on the person already dealing with a stressful legal situation.

Intactus: Evidence is preserved with cryptographic integrity the moment it enters the system. Automated monitoring means the client doesn't have to keep checking. The vault is permanent, encrypted, and backed up. The client can let go of the evidence burden and focus on what matters.

C12. Not feel overwhelmed by the volume

When I look at 400 text messages, 50 emails, and months of social media posts that need to be documented, I want to feel like this is manageable, so I can actually start instead of being paralyzed by the scale of it.

Current alternative: The client opens the text thread, sees 400 messages, and closes it. The task feels impossible. They tell themselves they'll do it this weekend. They don't. Weeks pass. The attorney asks for the evidence. The client feels guilty and overwhelmed. The case stalls or weakens because the evidence never gets collected.

Intactus: "Export the thread and upload it. That's it. We'll handle the rest." The 400-message thread becomes a single export action that takes 60 seconds. The impossible task becomes manageable. The client acts immediately instead of procrastinating, because the ask is "upload a file" not "read and screenshot 400 messages." The barrier collapses.

C13. Feel in control of my case without it costing a fortune

When I have questions about what's happening in my case, what my evidence shows, or what's coming next, I want to get answers on my own time without every question costing me money, so I can feel informed and in control instead of anxious and in the dark.

Current alternative: The client has a question at 10pm on a Tuesday. They can't call the attorney. They could email, but that's billable time when the attorney reads and responds. They could google it, but the results are generic and potentially wrong. They lie awake wondering. By the time they talk to the attorney, they've either forgotten the question, already made a decision without the information, or spent 30 minutes of billable time on a question whose answer was in their own evidence.

Intactus: The client opens the portal, asks "how many times has he been late for pickup?" and gets an immediate answer pulled from their evidence: "Based on the documented evidence, there are 14 instances of late pickup between September and January, with an average delay of 37 minutes." The client feels informed. The attorney's time is preserved for legal strategy. The client-attorney relationship improves because the client isn't accumulating unanswered questions or resentment over billable hours spent on simple information retrieval.

C14. Feel empowered, not helpless

When I'm dealing with a legal situation that feels overwhelming and one-sided, I want to have tools that level the playing field, so I can feel like I have agency and the ability to fight back effectively.

Current alternative: The adversary has resources, leverage, or technical sophistication. The client feels outmatched. Manual evidence collection feels futile against someone who can delete posts, create new accounts, or hire expensive lawyers.

Intactus: Automated capture and monitoring means the client's evidence collection is more systematic and thorough than what most adversaries expect. Forensic integrity means evidence can't be dismissed. AI analysis surfaces pattern detection that would otherwise require expensive experts. The "chat with my case" feature means the client understands their own evidence as well as the attorney does. The technology is an equalizer: the client becomes an informed, active participant in their case rather than a passive bystander.

C15. Feel like taking action is worth it

When I'm weighing whether to pursue legal action at all, I want to feel like the process of building a case won't be another ordeal on top of what I'm already going through, so I can decide to move forward with confidence instead of giving up.

Current alternative: The client researches what it takes to get a protective order or file for custody. They learn they'll need to document everything, organize it, present it. They're already exhausted. The documentation burden becomes the reason they don't pursue legal action. They stay in a bad situation because the process of getting help feels impossible.

Intactus: The attorney says: "Download this app. Upload your texts. Forward me the emails. Give me the URLs. We'll take it from there." The client's total time investment is 15 minutes, not 15 hours. The barrier between "I should do something" and "I'm doing something" shrinks to almost nothing. More people take action. This is the highest-stakes emotional job: the difference between pursuing your case and giving up.

Attorney Jobs

Attorneys are trial lawyers at small and mid-size firms handling cases where digital evidence is central: family law (custody, divorce, protective orders), criminal defense (witness impeachment, alibi evidence, discovery review), employment law (hostile work environment, discrimination), and harassment/stalking cases.

Functional Jobs

A1. Capture web evidence with forensic integrity

When I know that relevant evidence exists on a website, social media profile, or blog, I want to capture it in a forensically defensible way with full chain of custody, so I can present it in court without opposing counsel successfully challenging its authenticity.

Current alternative: Take a screenshot (no metadata, no chain of custody, easily fabricated). Use Page Vault at $149-349 per capture for individual pages (expensive, doesn't scale for ongoing monitoring). Ask a paralegal to manually document what they see (testimony, not forensic evidence). Hire a forensic expert ($200-500/hour).

Intactus: Provide a URL. The platform captures a full-page screenshot, raw HTML, embedded images, and complete metadata. Every artifact is SHA-256 hashed and recorded in a tamper-evident manifest with a timestamp. The capture process is documented and repeatable. Chain of custody is unbroken from the moment of capture through court presentation.

A2. Ingest and organize client evidence quickly

When a new client brings me a case with hundreds of pieces of digital evidence (screenshots, emails, documents, text messages), I want to get it all into a structured system quickly, so I can assess the case and start working without spending hours on organization.

Current alternative: Receive a zip file, USB drive, or stack of printed screenshots. Manually review each item. Create folder structures. Try to sort chronologically. Label by relevance. Build a spreadsheet to track it all. This takes 2-5 hours of paralegal time per case, minimum.

Intactus: Client uploads through the portal or attorney bulk-imports files. Every item is automatically hashed, timestamped, text-extracted, entity-extracted (names, dates, amounts), classified (threatening, financial, custody-relevant), summarized, and indexed. The case is organized and searchable in minutes, not hours.

A3. Search across all evidence instantly

When I'm working a case with a large volume of evidence, I want to find specific communications, mentions of a person, or types of content instantly, so I can locate what I need without reading through everything.

Current alternative: Ctrl+F through individual documents. Scroll through folders. Rely on memory: "I think he mentioned money in an email from October." Give up and re-read everything. Ask a paralegal to flag relevant items, adding days of delay.

Intactus: Full-text search across the entire evidence corpus. For complex queries, agentic retrieval reasons over a structured evidence index to find what matters. "Find financial contradictions" returns relevant results even if the word "financial" doesn't appear, because the LLM reasons about content and classifications rather than matching keywords. Filter by classification, entity, date range, source type, and relationships (all communications between two people). Pre-extracted entities (every person, date, location, dollar amount) are browsable and clickable. Results returned in seconds.

A4. See the timeline and the pattern

When I'm preparing for a hearing, mediation, or trial, I want to see all evidence arranged chronologically with the key patterns highlighted, so I can construct a compelling narrative that shows the judge what happened and when.

Current alternative: Manually build a timeline in Word or Excel. Cross-reference dates across emails, posts, and documents by hand. Miss connections because the volume is too large to hold in your head. Spend an evening assembling what should take minutes.

Intactus: Auto-generated chronological timeline from extracted dates across all evidence. Filter by source, type, or classification. See the pattern of escalation, the frequency of contact, the contradictions between public statements and private communications. The timeline is always current; new evidence slots in automatically.

A5. Analyze evidence without expensive experts

When I need to identify patterns, assess threats, detect contradictions, or synthesize findings across a large evidence set, I want to get AI-powered analysis at my direction, so I can build stronger arguments without hiring expert witnesses for every case.

Current alternative: Read everything yourself and rely on your own pattern recognition (time-consuming, limited by human memory and attention). Hire an expert witness at $200-500/hour for threat assessment, financial analysis, or behavioral pattern detection (prohibitively expensive for many cases). Go without analysis and present the evidence raw, hoping the judge sees the pattern.

Intactus: The attorney selects evidence items and directs the analysis: "Summarize the escalation pattern across these communications." "Identify contradictions between these social media posts and the sworn financial disclosure." "Assess the threat level based on these messages." The AI synthesizes across dozens or hundreds of evidence items in seconds. The attorney reviews, edits, and directs, maintaining work product protection while getting analysis that would otherwise require hours of personal review or thousands in expert fees.

A6. Prepare court-ready exhibits and reports fast

When I have a hearing in three days and need to assemble an evidence package with exhibits, timelines, and supporting narrative, I want to generate court-ready output directly from my evidence vault, so I can file on time without pulling an all-nighter.

Current alternative: Manually select relevant evidence. Number exhibits. Create a timeline document. Write a supporting narrative. Format everything for the court's requirements. Print, organize, and deliver. This is 4-8 hours of work per filing, often done under extreme time pressure.

Intactus: Select evidence items. Click "generate exhibit package." The platform produces numbered exhibits with chain-of-custody documentation, a chronological timeline with source citations, and a narrative summary of the evidence. Export as PDF. The attorney reviews, edits as needed, and files. Hours of preparation become minutes of review.

A7. Monitor ongoing activity without manual effort

When I'm handling a case where the opposing party continues to post, communicate, or behave in legally relevant ways, I want to automatically capture new evidence as it appears, so I can stay current without asking my client or staff to constantly check.

Current alternative: Ask the client to keep watching and sending screenshots (unreliable, traumatizing for DV clients). Assign a paralegal to check social media periodically (expensive, easy to miss things). Check yourself between other cases (unrealistic).

Intactus: Set up automated monitoring on URLs, social media profiles, blogs, or email threads. The platform checks on a configurable schedule, captures any new or changed content forensically, and alerts the attorney. The evidence vault stays current without anyone having to think about it.

A8. Use AI without risking privilege

When I want to use AI to analyze client evidence, draft arguments, or identify patterns, I want to do so through a tool that maintains attorney-client privilege and work product protection, so I can get the efficiency benefits of AI without the legal risk exposed by the Heppner ruling.

Current alternative: Use consumer ChatGPT or Claude and hope nobody finds out (privilege waived per Heppner). Avoid AI entirely and do everything manually (competitive disadvantage). Pay for Harvey AI at $1,200/month (designed for Big Law, not small firms). There is no privilege-safe AI tool built for small firm evidence analysis.

Intactus: All AI analysis is initiated by the attorney (work product doctrine). The platform uses Anthropic's commercial API with contractual confidentiality protections. Data is never retained by the AI provider or used for model training under commercial API terms. Migration to AWS Bedrock with PrivateLink and zero data retention is planned before onboarding paying customers beyond the design partner. The architecture is designed from the ground up to survive a privilege challenge, informed by the Heppner ruling.

A9. Prove evidence authenticity under challenge

When opposing counsel challenges the authenticity of my digital evidence (claiming fabrication, alteration, or lack of foundation), I want to demonstrate an unbroken chain of custody with cryptographic verification, so I can get my evidence admitted and relied upon by the court.

Current alternative: Testify yourself about how and when you captured the screenshot (weak). Call the client as a witness to authenticate their own screenshots (also weak). Hire a forensic expert to authenticate individual items ($200-500/hour). Accept that some evidence may be excluded because you can't adequately authenticate it.

Intactus: Every artifact has a SHA-256 hash computed at the moment of capture, recorded in a tamper-evident manifest with a timestamp and capture methodology. Any party can independently verify the hash. The platform produces chain-of-custody documentation suitable for laying a foundation under FRE 901/902. The system's capture methodology is documented and repeatable, supporting expert testimony if needed.

Practice-Level Jobs

These jobs aren't about a single case. They're about the attorney's practice as a business, and the reason an attorney keeps paying for Intactus month after month, even between cases.

A10. Stop spending attorney hours on work that isn't lawyering

When I look at how I spend my time, I want to eliminate the hours I spend on evidence intake, organization, screenshot management, timeline assembly, and exhibit preparation, so I can spend that time on the work that actually requires a law license: strategy, advocacy, negotiation, and court.

Small firm attorneys wear every hat. They're the lawyer, the paralegal, the IT department, and the filing clerk. The result is that a significant percentage of their time goes to tasks that don't require legal expertise: organizing screenshots, building timelines in Word, numbering exhibits, re-reading evidence they've already read to find the one email they need.

This is the "work top of license" problem. Every hour spent on evidence administration is an hour not spent on legal reasoning, client counseling, courtroom advocacy, or business development. It's also an hour that's either unbillable or billed at a rate the client resents paying.

Current alternative: Do it yourself (nights and weekends). Hire a paralegal ($45-65K/year salary + benefits, even if you only need 10 hours/week of paralegal work). Outsource to a virtual assistant (quality concerns, security concerns, management overhead). Just accept that half your day is administrative.

Intactus: The platform automates the administrative layer of evidence management entirely:

• Evidence intake: client uploads through portal → organized automatically (was: 2-5 hours per case)
• Evidence search: instant full-text search + agentic retrieval for complex queries (was: 15-30 minutes per query, multiple times per day)
• Timeline building: auto-generated from extracted dates (was: 2-4 hours per filing)
• Exhibit preparation: click to generate numbered package with chain of custody (was: 3-6 hours per hearing)
• Evidence analysis: AI synthesis in seconds at attorney's direction (was: hours of manual review or $1,000+ expert witness)

Conservative estimate: 5-10 hours saved per case on evidence administration alone. For a firm handling 50 cases/year, that's 250-500 hours redirected from administration to lawyering, or to taking on more cases, or to going home at a reasonable hour.

A11. Handle more cases without hiring more people

When my practice is at capacity and I'm turning away clients or letting cases sit, I want to increase my throughput without the overhead of additional staff, so I can grow revenue while keeping my firm lean and my margins high.

This is the core business case for a small firm attorney. They're not trying to build a 50-person firm. They want to be a 3-5 person firm that handles the caseload of a 10-person firm, with better margins.

The bottleneck isn't legal skill. It's the administrative time per case. If evidence management takes 10 hours per case and Intactus reduces that to 2 hours, the attorney can take on 2-3 more cases per month without working more hours or hiring anyone.

Current alternative: Hire a paralegal or associate ($45-120K/year). Work longer hours (burnout). Be more selective about cases and turn away revenue. Raise rates to compensate for lower volume (market ceiling on what clients will pay).

Intactus: The math:

• A family law attorney handles ~40-60 active cases/year
• Each case requires ~10-15 hours of evidence administration (intake, organization, search, timeline, exhibits)
• Intactus reduces this to ~2-3 hours per case
• That's 400-720 hours/year freed up, enough to take on 15-25 additional cases
• At an average case value of $3,000-5,000, that's $45,000-125,000 in additional annual revenue
• For $249/month ($2,988/year), the ROI is 15-40x

This isn't speculative. It's arithmetic. The platform replaces the paralegal hours spent on evidence work, not with another employee, but with software that costs a fraction of a salary and works 24/7.

A12. Reduce the client management overhead

When clients call with status questions, can't find evidence they already sent me, need to resend files I've already received, or want to understand something that's in their own documents, I want to give them a self-service way to answer these questions themselves, so I can reserve my time for the questions that actually require legal judgment.

Every small firm attorney knows the drain: the client who calls every Monday for a status update. The one who sends the same screenshot three times because they're not sure you received it. The one who asks "what did he say in that email from October?" when the answer is in the evidence the attorney already reviewed. None of these interactions require legal expertise. All of them consume attorney time.

Current alternative: Take the call (billable but low-value, and the client resents being billed for it). Don't take the call (client feels ignored, relationship degrades). Have a receptionist handle it (limited usefulness, adds salary overhead). Send a weekly status email (still takes time to compose, often doesn't answer the client's specific question).

Intactus: The client portal becomes the first line of communication and information:

• Case status: Client sees their evidence vault, timeline, and any updates from the attorney; no call needed
• Evidence questions: "Chat with My Case" answers factual questions about the client's own evidence; "what did he say in October?" gets an instant answer without attorney involvement
• Secure messaging: Client sends a message through the portal instead of calling or emailing; attorney responds when convenient, not in real-time
• Evidence upload confirmation: Client can see everything they've submitted and its status; no "did you get my screenshots?" calls
• Document access: Client can view their own exhibits, timelines, and reports; no "can you send me that again?" emails

The attorney's phone rings less. The client feels more informed and more connected. Both sides win. And the interactions that do require attorney time are the ones that actually need a lawyer: legal strategy, decision-making, and advocacy.

A13. Reduce client acquisition cost and intake friction

When a prospective client contacts my firm about a case involving digital evidence, I want to get them from "first call" to "evidence in the system" as fast as possible, so I can assess the case quickly, reduce the time-to-engagement, and convert more consultations into retained clients.

The intake process for cases with digital evidence is currently a multi-step, high-friction affair. The prospective client calls, describes their situation verbally (losing detail and nuance), schedules an in-person meeting, brings in whatever evidence they managed to gather (incomplete and disorganized), and the attorney spends the first meeting just receiving and understanding the evidence before they can even assess the case. Days or weeks pass between first contact and meaningful engagement.

Current alternative: Phone consultation (the attorney hears a verbal summary with no evidence). In-person meeting (the client brings their phone and scrolls). "Send me everything by email" (client sends 47 individual attachments over three emails, half of which are duplicates). The intake process takes 1-3 weeks and significant attorney time before the case can even be evaluated.

Intactus: The attorney sends the prospective client a link to the evidence portal during the first phone call. "Upload your texts, forward your emails, paste the URLs before our meeting." By the time the client walks in (or the attorney opens the case), the evidence is already ingested, organized, timestamped, and searchable. The attorney can assess the strength of the case in minutes instead of days. The client is impressed by the professionalism and speed. The conversion rate from consultation to retained client goes up because:

1. The attorney can give an informed case assessment immediately, not "let me review your materials and get back to you"
2. The client feels taken seriously from the first interaction
3. The competitor who says "bring me your screenshots next Tuesday" is at a disadvantage

Emotional Jobs

A14. Feel prepared and confident going into court

When I'm about to argue a motion, present at a hearing, or go to trial, I want to know that my evidence is complete, organized, and bulletproof, so I can focus on advocacy instead of worrying about whether I missed something or whether my evidence will hold up.

Current alternative: Anxiety that you missed a key piece of evidence. Trying to remember which folder the important email was in. Staying up late the night before a hearing assembling exhibits. Walking into court hoping opposing counsel doesn't challenge the evidence you're least confident about.

Intactus: The vault contains everything, searchable and verified. The timeline is complete. The exhibits are numbered and documented. The chain of custody is unbroken. The attorney walks into court knowing the evidence is forensically sound, comprehensively organized, and ready to present.

A15. Feel like I'm giving my client the best possible representation

When I'm handling a case with significant digital evidence, I want to use the most effective tools available, so I can feel confident that I'm not leaving anything on the table for my client.

Current alternative: The feeling that there's a pattern in the evidence you're not seeing because the volume is too large. The knowledge that an expert witness could find things you missed, but your client can't afford one. The awareness that better-resourced opposing counsel may have tools you don't.

Intactus: AI analysis surfaces patterns, contradictions, and connections that human review alone would miss. The attorney directs the analysis and decides what matters, but the system ensures nothing is overlooked. Every relevant fact is findable. Every pattern is detectable. The client gets representation backed by tools their adversary probably doesn't have.

Social Jobs

A16. Be seen as a sophisticated, technology-forward firm

When prospective clients are evaluating attorneys, I want to demonstrate that my firm uses advanced forensic evidence technology, so I can differentiate from competitors and win clients who have complex digital evidence needs.

Current alternative: "We take digital evidence seriously" is something every attorney says. Few can demonstrate how. The tools are invisible to the client. The firm's technology advantage is indistinguishable from the competition's.

Intactus: The client portal itself is a differentiator. Clients experience a professional, secure evidence intake process from day one. The forensic evidence packages demonstrate a level of rigor that impresses judges and puts opposing counsel on notice. The firm's Intactus-powered workflow becomes a selling point: "We use forensic evidence technology that captures, preserves, and analyzes digital evidence with cryptographic chain of custody."

A17. Present evidence that commands the court's respect

When I present digital evidence to a judge, I want to present it in a format that is clearly organized, professionally documented, and forensically sound, so I can have my evidence taken seriously and build credibility with the court.

Current alternative: Printed screenshots with handwritten dates. A stack of exhibits in no particular order. A timeline you assembled in Word at midnight. Evidence that looks like what it is: a rushed, manual effort. Judges have seen a thousand cases with sloppy digital evidence. It doesn't inspire confidence.

Intactus: Numbered exhibits with chain-of-custody documentation. Chronological timelines with source citations. Hash verification instructions. Professional formatting. Evidence prepared by a forensic system, presented with the rigor to match. The presentation itself signals thoroughness and credibility.

Job Priority Matrix

Agent-Multiplied Jobs

Agents amplify existing jobs; they don't create new categories of work. The following jobs are especially well-served by AI agents operating under attorney direction:

AM1. Triage evidence without drowning in volume

When I'm overwhelmed with a large batch of new evidence uploads (200 text messages, 50 emails, and a dozen web captures), I want to have an AI agent triage and summarize the new uploads, so I can focus on strategy and legal reasoning instead of spending hours classifying and reviewing each item.

Without agents: The attorney or paralegal manually reviews each piece of evidence, classifies it, reads the summary, and decides what matters. This is 2-5 hours per batch.

With Intactus agents: The Intake Agent triages the batch automatically, classifying, extracting entities, flagging high-priority items, and surfacing items that need attorney review. The attorney reviews a structured summary instead of 200 individual items. The agent uses the same tool layer as the UI; every action is logged with attorney attribution.

AM2. Answer client questions at any hour

When a client asks about their case status at 11pm on a Tuesday, I want to have an AI agent answer accurately from the evidence vault, so I can keep my client informed without being on call 24/7 and without the meter running.

Without agents: The client waits until business hours, calls (billable), and gets an answer the attorney could have retrieved from the evidence in 30 seconds. Or the client uses consumer AI tools and creates non-privileged, discoverable documents.

With Intactus agents: The Client-Facing Agent answers factual questions from client-visible evidence immediately. "How many times was he late for pickup?" gets an instant, cited answer. The agent operates within the privileged platform infrastructure. The attorney sees the interaction in the audit trail. The client feels informed; the attorney's time is preserved for legal judgment.

AM3. Generate reports from evidence without manual assembly

When I need a Case Brief, Statement of Material Facts, or Deposition Prep Outline for an upcoming hearing, I want to have an AI agent compose the report from my evidence and approved facts, so I can review and refine a draft instead of assembling it from scratch.

Without agents: The attorney manually selects evidence, cross-references facts with issues, assembles the report structure, writes the narrative, and formats for court. This is 4-8 hours per filing.

With Intactus agents: The Drafting Agent composes the report by calling the same tools the UI uses (searching evidence, retrieving facts by issue, traversing relationships), then generates a structured draft with citations. The attorney reviews, edits, and files. Hours become minutes of review.

Switching Triggers

What causes an attorney to seek a new solution (and potentially adopt Intactus):

Attorney-side triggers:

1. Evidence gets excluded. A judge excludes digital evidence for lack of authentication or chain of custody. The attorney vows never again.
2. Evidence gets deleted. A critical post or email disappears before it can be captured. The case is weakened or lost.
3. A case overwhelms them. The volume of digital evidence in a case exceeds what manual methods can handle. They miss something important.
4. They lose time they can't bill. Hours spent organizing screenshots and building timelines; work the client won't pay for but the case requires.
5. The Heppner ruling scares them. They realize their current AI usage (consumer ChatGPT/Claude) risks waiving privilege. They need an alternative.
6. A peer shows them something better. They see a colleague's Intactus-generated evidence package and realize what's possible.
7. An opposing counsel outclasses them. The other side presents forensically sound, professionally organized digital evidence. They feel behind.

Client-side triggers (which drive demand to the attorney):

8. A client can't face the documentation process. The attorney asks the client to "bring me all the evidence" and the client goes silent for weeks, not because they don't care, but because reading through 400 threatening texts is emotionally unbearable. The attorney needs a tool that makes the ask easy.
9. A client's evidence is incomplete. The client brings in 30 screenshots from a 6-month harassment campaign. The attorney knows there must be more but the client captured only what they could face. Critical evidence is missing because the client self-censored out of exhaustion.
10. A client doesn't pursue protection at all. The attorney never sees the client because the client looked at the documentation requirements and decided they couldn't handle it. The attorney never knows about the case that should have been. This is the invisible trigger: it drives demand for a tool that lowers the barrier to action.
11. A client's evidence arrives in chaos. The attorney receives a zip file with 500 unsorted screenshots named IMG_4521.png through IMG_5019.png. The paralegal spends a full day organizing them. The attorney realizes there has to be a better intake process.

Anti-Jobs (What Clients and Attorneys Do NOT Want)

Understanding what users actively avoid is as important as understanding what they want:

• Do not want to learn complex software. If it requires training, certification, or an IT department, it's not for small firms.
• Do not want another subscription they barely use. The product must deliver value in the first case or it gets cancelled.
• Do not want to change their workflow dramatically. The tool must fit into how attorneys already work, not demand they restructure their practice.
• Do not want to worry about data security. Security should be invisible and inherent, not a configuration exercise.
• Do not want to be dependent on a vendor for court. Evidence packages must be independently verifiable. If Intactus disappeared tomorrow, the hashes and manifests should still be valid.
• Do not want AI making legal judgments. The attorney directs, reviews, and decides. The AI assists; it does not practice law.