Answers from the current brief, with open questions called out

Answer

Need to check with the client. The brief mentions multiple monetizable surfaces, but does not name a primary model.

Evidence

Document procurement is explicitly paid, and lawyer validation is explicitly paid. Subscription, per-property analysis, and lawyer commissions are not confirmed.

Next Check

Ask whether launch revenue should prioritize per-property analysis, assisted procurement, lawyer validation fees, subscriptions, or a mix.

Answer

Need to check with the client. The prototype and brief examples strongly suggest Karnataka/Bengaluru, but the brief does not formally limit launch geography.

Evidence

Examples include BBMP, RTC, BDA/CDP, khata, Tahsildar Office, Koramangala, and Karnataka-style property documents.

Next Check

Confirm whether MVP is Karnataka-only, Bengaluru-first, pan-India, or designed for future international expansion.

Answer

Partially indicated, but needs client confirmation. The brief references government validation but does not list exact APIs, access methods, or availability.

Evidence

Prototype references BBMP, RTC / Revenue Department, Sub-Registrar EC search, BDA/CDP zoning, tax, khata, water bodies, buffer zones, and road widening overlays.

Next Check

Confirm official data sources, API availability, scraping constraints, manual upload fallback, and legal permission to use each source.

Answer

The brief positions the opinion as system-generated with optional lawyer validation, but the exact automation boundary needs client confirmation.

Evidence

Brief says: legal opinion generated; optional lawyer validation. Lawyer mode requires editable inputs, raw data, verification logs, and expert review.

Next Check

Clarify whether launch opinion is fully AI-generated, rules-assisted, lawyer-reviewed before release, or user-labeled as a draft until validated.

Answer

Need to check with the client. The brief names several user roles but does not identify the launch beachhead.

Evidence

General users include buyers, sellers, and investors. Legal experts include lawyers and legal assistants. Banks, developers, and legal firms are not explicitly positioned as launch primary users.

Next Check

Pick one primary launch audience because onboarding, pricing, trust signals, and report depth will change based on this choice.

Answer

Yes at a product-experience level, but detailed permissions are not specified.

Evidence

The brief separates simplified views for general users from deep insights for lawyers. Advanced Lawyer Mode includes raw data, logs, discrepancy detection, and editable inputs.

Next Check

Define role permissions: who can edit extracted data, finalize reports, invite users, approve legal opinions, and view sensitive documents.

Answer

Several trust mechanisms are present in the brief, but the priority and proof standards need client confirmation.

Evidence

The brief emphasizes verified data, traceability, approved lawyers, credibility indicators, government integrations, and document-to-source evidence.

Next Check

Confirm which trust signals should lead the UI: verified government data, lawyer credentials, partnerships, certifications, audit trails, or branded legal reports.

Answer

Not specified in the brief.

Evidence

No competitor names, reference products, UX inspirations, or benchmark platforms are included.

Next Check

Ask for 3-5 references: legal-tech, fintech, property platforms, due diligence tools, or premium report/reporting products.

Answer

The brief is clear on the intended emotional direction: confidence, clarity, trust, and reduced legal anxiety.

Evidence

Brand attributes include authoritative, intelligent, trustworthy, minimalistic, premium. UX goal: 'I understand this property and what I should do next.'

Next Check

Use calm, evidence-led UI language. Avoid fear-heavy risk presentation unless the recommendation is genuinely severe.

Answer

Need to check with the client. Collaboration is implied by lawyer validation, but multi-stakeholder workflows are not specified.

Evidence

Brief includes general users, lawyers, legal assistants, and optional lawyer validation. It does not mention sellers, brokers, family members, banks, comments, shared workspaces, or approvals.

Next Check

Confirm whether collaboration is in MVP, phase two, or out of scope. This affects permissions, notifications, sharing, and audit trails.

Answer

Need to check with the client. Current prototype is mobile-first, but the brief itself does not mandate mobile-first.

Evidence

The implemented wireframes are phone-frame mobile screens. The brief asks for UX flows, wireframes, dashboards, report UI, and marketplace UX without specifying device priority.

Next Check

Confirm primary launch surface. General buyers may prefer mobile; lawyers may need desktop for dense review and report editing.

Answer

Important, but likely not the sole core experience. The brief explicitly includes zoning overlays, road widening, water bodies, buffers, and area impact visuals.

Evidence

KPI & Intelligence Layer requires CDP overlays, roads, zoning, water bodies / buffer zones, risk meters, area impact visuals, and map-based overlays.

Next Check

Ask whether maps are MVP-critical or future-ready. Data availability by jurisdiction will determine how strong this feature can be at launch.

Answer

The brief confirms lawyers need editable inputs, but not the full scope of report customization.

Evidence

Advanced Lawyer Mode requires editable inputs, raw data access, verification logs, discrepancy detection, and summary/expert toggle.

Next Check

Confirm whether lawyers can edit extracted data only, edit legal reasoning, override recommendations, add clauses, brand reports, or sign/finalize reports.

Answer

Likely needed, but not explicitly specified. The prototype includes a share CTA, but the brief does not define PDF/export requirements.

Evidence

Brief asks for legal opinion visual design and reporting UI. Screen 24 currently includes a 'Share Opinion' CTA, but PDF/export format is not defined.

Next Check

Confirm PDF, share link, watermarking, branding, lawyer signature, version history, and whether reports are legally binding or informational.

Answer

Not specified in the brief, but this is critical because the product handles legal/property documents and personal data.

Evidence

The brief mentions verification, traceability, and government data, but does not name privacy standards, retention rules, encryption, consent, audit, or compliance requirements.

Next Check

Ask about DPDP Act compliance, data retention, encryption, access logs, user consent, document deletion, legal disclaimers, and secure sharing.