AI SOURCE GROUNDING FOR LAWYERS
Where the
answer ends.
A fluent answer can go further than its evidence. Learn to recognize the boundary—and teach AI to respect it.
About 6 minutes
THE CASE ON YOUR DESK
Edispark LLC v. Johnson2026 IL App (1st) 260211-U
The court did not address AI. These are authored teaching examples, not recorded model responses. No live AI service is used; your choices reset on reload.
THE SOURCE DESK
0 of 4 claims checked
CLAIM 01 / 04
One verb changes the answer.
The appellate court affirmed the eviction judgment.
Judge the claim against the opinion.
THE AI CONCEPT
Give it a source.
Check the boundary.
Grounding means giving an AI answer a source to work from. Supplying an opinion gives the model relevant material. It does not establish that every sentence the model writes is supported by that material.
The useful review happens claim by claim: What does the source say? Who says it? What remains unknown? A citation can point to a real paragraph while the attached claim goes beyond it.
When the evidence runs out, the answer should say so. “The supplied opinion does not establish that fact” preserves the boundary and identifies what needs further checking.
NIST describes confidently presented erroneous content as confabulation, often called hallucination. Generative AI Profile, §2.2
THE COMPLETE WALKTHROUGH
Read the checks.
Keep the reasoning.
All four claims, classifications, and source passages are available here without using the session controls.
01The outcome
THE TEACHING CLAIM
The appellate court affirmed the eviction judgment.
Contradicted. Exactly. The disposition is dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. Replacing “dismissed” with “affirmed” turns a jurisdictional decision into a merits decision the court did not make.
A SOURCE-BASED REVISION
The appellate court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction; it did not resolve Johnson’s challenges to the eviction judgment’s validity. (¶¶ 26–29)
Check the precise disposition before accepting a summary of who won.
For these reasons, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.
Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction to consider Johnson’s challenges to whether the August 20 order was validly agreed to, whether the court properly dismissed HOW, whether factual findings were required before entry of the eviction judgment, or whether the circuit court should have vacated that judgment.
02The attribution
THE TEACHING CLAIM
Johnson voluntarily and knowingly agreed to the eviction.
Not established. Exactly. The circuit court recalled confirming agreement; Johnson said the order was forced. The appellate court lacked jurisdiction to decide validity. The supported answer preserves that uncertainty.
A SOURCE-BASED REVISION
The circuit court recalled confirming Johnson’s agreement; Johnson disputed it. The appellate court did not decide whether the order was validly agreed to. (¶¶ 9, 26)
Keep allegations, recollections, and holdings attached to the person or court making them.
The court stated that it had reviewed the terms with Johnson and had confirmed that she agreed to them. Johnson interjected that the order “was forced.”
Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction to consider Johnson’s challenges to whether the August 20 order was validly agreed to, whether the court properly dismissed HOW, whether factual findings were required before entry of the eviction judgment, or whether the circuit court should have vacated that judgment.
03The missing evidence
THE TEACHING CLAIM
The appellate record contains an August 20 transcript confirming consent.
Contradicted. Exactly. The opinion says this transcript is absent from the record. The claim invents both a supplied source and what that source supposedly confirms.
A SOURCE-BASED REVISION
The appellate record does not contain a transcript of the August 20, 2025, proceedings. The opinion instead reports the circuit court’s later description. (¶¶ 5, 9)
Distinguish a missing source from a source that proves the opposite.
The record does not contain a transcript of the August 20, 2025, proceedings.
04The supported conclusion
THE TEACHING CLAIM
The January 28 order extended enforcement by 120 days without altering the substantive rights established by the eviction judgment.
Supported. Exactly. Paragraph 17 directly supports both parts of the claim: the 120-day extension and the unchanged substantive rights. Careful review also recognizes what the source does establish.
THE CLAIM CAN STAND
The January 28 order extended enforcement by 120 days without altering the substantive rights established by the eviction judgment. (¶ 17)
Appropriate restraint means answering supported questions and identifying the ones that remain open.
The January 28 order did not determine which party was entitled to possession, reinstate HOW as a defendant, impose a money judgment, or otherwise alter the substantive rights established by the eviction judgment. All it did was extend, by 120 days, the period during which the sheriff could enforce the eviction judgment.
05A reusable AI source-check prompt
Use this prompt with the supplied opinion. In the interactive session, you can choose which instructions to include and download your version.
SOURCE & PREPARATION
A real order.
A practice session.
Read the preserved order 
Edispark LLC v. Johnson
2026 IL App (1st) 260211-U
Illinois Appellate Court, First District
Order filed
Official Illinois Courts order · Preserved exercise PDF
The appellate court dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction. It did not decide Johnson’s challenges to the validity of the agreed eviction order. ¶¶26–30
The order was filed under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 23 and is not precedential except in the limited circumstances allowed by Rule 23(e)(1), as its notice states.
This session uses the supplied seven-page appellate order, not the complete trial record. Integrated Cognition prepared the exercise and feedback with AI assistance. The filing date describes the court’s order; it is not a publication date for this session. Jonathan Nessler’s legal review is pending.
