Computational modeling demonstrates reproducible temporal retrieval across evolving case law, highlighting how graph overlays capture shifting judicial interpretations of statutory rules.
Legal retrieval systems may recover the text of a statute as it stood on a given date while missing the judicial interpretation that then governed its application. This paper introduces the Interpretive Graph Overlay, an extension of the Structure-Aware Temporal Graph RAG (SAT-Graph) framework that represents adjudication as an event acting on a normative target. Judicial decisions remain versioned documentary objects, while curated adjudicative Actions produce temporally scoped Interpretive Versions carrying the relevant ratio, holding, authority, and scope.The overlay reuses four application-level primitives—Item, Version, Action, and TextUnit—through a shared event topology rather than introducing a separate case-law ontology. Where a statutory provision exists, its textual Version may coexist with one or more interpretive overlays; in judge-made domains, successive Interpretive Versions may instead represent authoritative articulations of a doctrine or the authority state of a scoped proposition. Retrieval is deterministic only in the bounded sense adopted here: once canonical identifiers, temporal parameters, and curated graph assertions are fixed, structural and temporal traversals are reproducible; legal applicability remains the result of an explicit jurisdiction-specific authority-resolution policy.Four manually encoded case studies exercise interpretive mutation, constitutional dialogue, concurrent panel interpretations and institutional unification, and the evolution of the English duty-recognition methodology from Donoghue v. Stevenson to Robinson. The public artifact includes the JSON encodings, a browser viewer driven by a shared temporal-resolution engine, structural validation, and executable behavioral tests for fixtures, interval boundaries, input normalization, and equivalent timestamp representations.Expanded author version of a two-page demonstration paper accepted at the 21st International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL 2026). The ACM Version of Record, once published, should be cited by DOI.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hudson de Martim (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: