Step 5: Research the email-notice point without inventing a case
Technique Grounding and abstention
Grounding and abstention: state the jurisdiction and permitted sources, require quoted source-linked propositions, give the model an out, frame the question neutrally, and demand a verification list
The brief
Learning objective
Write a legal research prompt that produces citable, checkable material: jurisdiction named, lease-text analysis separated from external law, every legal proposition tied to an authority marked for verification, explicit permission to say 'no authority identified', and both sides of the argument requested.
Scenario
The partner has asked whether the emailed break notice is a valid exercise of the break under clause 19.1. The deadline has passed, so the notice cannot be re-served: the whole exit strategy turns on this point. You know the sanctions cases: a fabricated authority here would be discovered by the landlord's solicitors and the court. You will run the research in an AI assistant and then verify everything in a primary database.
Your task
Write the research prompt. It must name the jurisdiction you are assuming (a placeholder such as [Jurisdiction] is acceptable), separate what the lease says from what the law says, require quoted and citable authorities labelled for verification, give the model explicit permission to report 'no authority identified' rather than guess, ask for the arguments against the tenant as well as for, and end with a list of everything a human must check.
Materials
What you have on file
LEASE 12.1 The Tenant may terminate this Lease on the Break Date (1 March 2027) by serving on the Landlord not less than nine months' written notice. 12.3 Time is of the essence for clause 12. 19.1 Any notice under this Lease shall be in writing and shall be delivered by hand or sent by recorded delivery post to the recipient's registered office. A notice sent by post is deemed served two working days after posting. The lease contains no governing-law clause. FACTS - 28 May 2026: Brackwater's operations director emailed a signed PDF break notice to Orrin's asset manager, who replied the same day: 'Received, will revert.' - No hand-delivered or posted copy was sent. - 3 September 2026: Orrin's solicitors assert the notice is invalid under clause 19.1. - The nine-month deadline was 1 June 2026 and has passed; the notice cannot be re-served. PARTNER'S QUESTION 'Is the emailed notice a valid exercise of the break? Give me the honest position, with the authorities we would rely on and the ones against us. I need to know what we can actually cite.' NOTE: this course is jurisdiction-neutral. In your prompt, name the jurisdiction you are assuming or use a placeholder such as [Jurisdiction]. Treat any case law the model produces as unverified until checked in a primary database.
Paste these into your prompt where the task calls for it, or refer to them with a placeholder such as [paste lease extract]. When you run a prompt that uses a placeholder, the Lab appends the materials so the model has something to work on. Where the task asks you to paste an edited copy, nothing is appended: what you paste is what runs.
How you will be graded
Rubric (100 points)
The grader scores your prompt, not the output. Length and formatting earn nothing; a short prompt that hits every criterion beats a long one that misses one.
| Criterion | Pts | What good looks like |
|---|---|---|
| States the jurisdiction (or an explicit placeholder/assumption) and which sources may be relied on | 20 | 'Assume the lease is governed by the law of [Jurisdiction]; if that changes the analysis, say so'; sources limited to the lease clauses, the facts given and that jurisdiction's law. |
| Gives explicit permission to say 'no authority identified' or 'insufficient support' and, phrased positively, tells the model what to do instead of guessing | 25 | 'If you cannot identify an authority you are confident exists, say no authority identified and state the principle as your understanding only; an unsupported point is more useful to me than a doubtful case name.' |
| Requires each legal proposition to be tied to a named authority with a citation and a quoted or closely paraphrased proposition, labelled 'to be verified', and separates lease-text interpretation from external law | 25 | A lease-text section that quotes clause 19.1 words, then a law section where every principle has an authority and a verification label; no unlabelled assertions of law. |
| Frames the question neutrally and asks for authorities and arguments against the tenant as well as for | 15 | 'Give the arguments each way' and 'include authorities against the tenant'; the prompt does not ask the model to find support for a predetermined conclusion. |
| Asks for a verification list and confidence or probability labels for the human reviewer | 15 | A closing list of every citation with name, court, year, reporter and where to check it, plus an overall assessment with a probability band and the facts that would change it. |
Hints
Stuck? Open one at a time.
Hint 1
Name the jurisdiction and say which sources count; a model given no jurisdiction fills the gap silently, often with the wrong one.Hint 2
Write the out explicitly: 'if you cannot identify an authority you are confident exists, say no authority identified; an unsupported point is more useful than a doubtful case name'.Hint 3
Ask a neutral question ('is the notice valid?') and demand the authorities against you; 'find me a case that says email notice is valid' is the prompt that produces fabrications.
Your prompt