Technology · The engine
Ignita does not have opinions. It has support.
Ignita sits behind every Oritura portal. It reads what you have recorded, names only what the record can carry, and shows you exactly where each line came from.
Capability
Four readings, each with a number attached.
Confidence is displayed, never implied. A low number is information, not a failure — it tells you which part of the record to strengthen next.
Sequence
Orders fragments into a defensible timeline and flags the gaps where memory is doing work the record should be doing.
Confidence 82%
Recurrence
Counts repetition across actors and dates. One remark is an anecdote; the fourth is a pattern with a shape.
Confidence 74%
Proximity
Measures the distance between a protected act and an adverse one. Closeness in time is the oldest argument there is.
Confidence 68%
Corroboration
Matches each assertion to the files that support it, and says plainly when nothing does.
Confidence 59%
How a pattern is found
An exhibit is only evidence once something else agrees with it.
Ignita reads exhibits the way a careful reader would: it takes each document at face value, places it in time, then looks for the second and third document that either agrees with it or contradicts it. A pattern is what survives that comparison. Everything that does not survive is reported as a gap, in plain language, so you know what to gather next.
01
Take the document literally
A date, an author, a recipient, a stated reason. Nothing is inferred yet — the exhibit is only allowed to say what it actually says.
02
Place it against the others
Each exhibit is set beside the events around it. Agreement strengthens a line; a contradiction is surfaced rather than smoothed over.
03
Name only what survives
Repetition across actors and dates becomes a pattern with a confidence figure. Anything unsupported is returned as a gap to gather next.
Demonstration
Watch it read a real reported matter.
These are published employment decisions from the case library — public record, no private data. The reading below is illustrative: it shows what the record can support, never what a court would decide.
Live reading
Choose a publicly reported matter. Ignita reads its public-record exhibits and returns the same four passes it runs on a private record.
Reading complete
Sequence
Confidence 44%Puts the fragments in order and marks where the record thins out.
4 events placed in order, 2 of them marked as protected activity or key conduct.
Recurrence
Confidence 67%Counts repetition across actors and dates before calling anything a pattern.
2 separate marked events, which is repetition rather than a single incident.
Proximity
Confidence 94%Measures the distance between a protected act and an adverse one.
Jury verdict for the employee, affirmed The gaps below are what would narrow or widen that distance.
Corroboration
Confidence 75%Matches each assertion to a document, and says plainly when nothing does.
3 exhibits attached, 1 of them documentary rather than recollection.
ignita-completeness-v1 · illustrative
94/100
548 U.S. 53 · Supreme Court of the United States, 2006
Exhibits read
Reported decision · statement of facts · Public record
“The reassignment kept her pay grade but moved her to “more arduous and dirtier” track labor.”
Company suspension and grievance record · Employer document
“37 days without pay, later reversed with full back pay.”
Internal complaint records · Employer document
“Two separate protected complaints, each followed by an adverse action.”
What the record cannot yet carry
- — Comparator evidence on how other operators' duties were assigned.
- — Contemporaneous notes from the complaint meetings themselves.
Preview. Not legal advice. Attorney-reviewed: false.
Trace
Every line points back at a file.
| Claim | Source | Support |
|---|---|---|
| Complaint raised in writing | Entry 03 · attachment a41f | High |
| Schedule change followed | Entry 05 · attachment 9c02 | Medium |
| Same supervisor across both | Entries 03, 05, 06 | High |
| Stated reason for change | No supporting file | None |
Preview. Not legal advice. Attorney-reviewed: false.
Ignita output is a reading of your own record. It is not a legal conclusion and has not been reviewed by an attorney.