Legal question answering is usually evaluated as if the law were static. In Kazakhstan, it changed twice within one year: a new Constitution replaced the 1995 text on 1 July 2026, and a new Tax Code replaced its predecessor on 1 January 2026, both reusing article numbers for different norms. We release a dated corpus of 41 Kazakhstani acts parsed to article level in both official languages (12,235 Russian and 11,973 Kazakh articles) and a benchmark of 150 question-answer pairs in seven layers, two of which score declining to answer and asking for a date. Two practising lawyers confirmed every pair. Comparing a no-retrieval baseline, retrieval-augmented generation and a tool-using agent, we find that retrieval rather than generation accounts for most citation error, measured against each pair’s source articles: given the gold article, the model cites it in 92% of cases, and retrieval alone reduces citations of non-existent norms from 31% to zero. The agent adds nothing on this measure and abstains far less often. Dense retrieval improves citation recall but nearly doubles the repealed norms presented as current; date-aware ranking removes them for every retriever, although under dense retrieval it also removes three historically required citations. The retrieval findings are reproduced on two open models.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Beisov et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: