e-Discovery Team

Ralph Losey. August 18, 2025.

What if justice had a shape — not rigid scales or a blindfolded figure, but a living, dynamic map? Imagine causation as a multidimensional space, where influence, control, and responsibility could be mapped across a moving legal landscape, like tides over a reef. That is the vision behind Topological Jurisprudence, a framework first glimpsed through work with applied mathematics using advanced AI — now, for the first time, including ChatGPT-5.

Using topological network mapping, we set out to see if this next-generation AI can turn an abstract mathematical concept into a practical tool for mapping fault in law’s most complex disputes.

This idea may sound like science fiction, but it is grounded in topological data analysis (TDA, a branch of applied mathematics built to reveal patterns and relationships in complex, evolving systems. Here, the courtroom meets the mathematics of shape and flow. In the pages ahead, I move from visual allure to substantive potential: can AI-driven topology bring clarity to the most complex causation disputes of our digital age?

And this time, the question is tested with tools that didn’t exist when I began this journey. In Epiphanies or Illusions, Parts One and Two, I explored whether AI could find meaningful cross-domain patterns at all. Now, with GPT-5’s leap in cross-disciplinary synthesis, I can ask something new: not just “can it see the pattern?” — but “can it carry that insight into a framework lawyers can actually use in court?”

From Epiphany to Application

The Shape of Justice is my first major legal-technology project to apply GPT-5’s markedly improved abilities in cross-disciplinary pattern recognition and synthesis.

Where GPT-4o could propose intriguing links, GPT-5 can integrate them into a coherent, working framework without losing the rigor of either discipline. Here, that means fusing the mathematics of topology with the logic of proximate cause, comparative fault, and courtroom evidence.

The result is a practical tool — Topological Jurisprudence — that can map complex causation in a way static diagrams and bullet-point briefs cannot. It can show where fault originates, where it converges, and, as the case study ahead demonstrates, where it never touches a party at all.

Why Traditional Tools Break Down

In simple negligence, causation is a straight line:

Defendant A acted → Plaintiff B was harmed → liability follows.

But complex, multi-actor disputes — especially in high-tech contexts — rarely follow neat chains.

Consider:

• Autonomous vehicle accidents with components and services from multiple companies.
• Blockchain collapses involving code, governance votes, and trading patterns.
• International supply chain contamination where the source could be anywhere in a dozen linked facilities.

Traditional “branch tree” diagrams are static. They struggle with systems where relationships change over time or where multiple causes converge unexpectedly.

What Topological Jurisprudence Brings

Topology is a branch of geometry that studies how points and connections form patterns that persist even as shapes stretch or shift.

Topological data analysis (TDA) applies this to complex datasets — finding relationships, clusters, and gaps that remain significant across different scales and conditions.

For lawyers, think of it this way:

• Nodes = parties, devices, software modules.
• Edges = relationships between them — contracts, data flows, communications.
• Attributes = details on each connection — timestamps, amounts, governing law.
• Time layers = how nodes and edges change over time.

In litigation, this means you can see:

• Where fault starts.
• How multiple causes interact.
• Whether a party’s conduct ever intersected with the harm.

Case Study: The Autonomous Vehicle Pile-Up

Scenario:

A self-driving sedan manufactured by Alset Motors is involved in a multi-car collision. Eight claimants. Seven corporate defendants.

Jurisdiction: Florida, pure comparative negligence; no joint-and-several for ordinary negligence.

Actors

• Alset Motors – Vehicle manufacturer. All core systems and base software worked flawlessly.
• NaviAuto Corp. – Supplier of navigation and hazard-avoidance subsystem (Perception Stack v3.1.2).
• SensorCo – Supplier of LiDAR S-200 hardware used in NaviAuto’s subsystem.
• GeoMaps Inc. – Provider of real-time mapping and hazard alerts via API.

Topological Causation Pathway

1. Impact (12:44:42 EDT): Alset’s braking system engages late but functions perfectly when commanded.
2. Internal Failure (NaviAuto): Humidity causes LiDAR S-200 data to be misread by v3.1.2, creating a ~700 ms hazard-classification delay.
3. External Failure (GeoMaps): API outage (HTTP 503) at 12:44:11 EDT prevents a hazard alert from reaching NaviAuto’s subsystem, removing a critical redundancy.
4. Convergence: Two independent failures — one internal to NaviAuto, one external to GeoMaps — remove both the primary and backup hazard-mitigation layers.

Topological takeaway:

The causal lanes merge before the control signal reaches Alset’s braking system. Alset’s systems respond exactly as designed; no proximate cause is traceable to the OEM.

Counterfactual Stress Test

(Applying “but for” causation with measurable inputs)

• If GeoMaps’ warning had arrived within 2 seconds: The driver-assistance system would have reduced speed by ~8% within 1.5 seconds, avoiding impact in 94% of simulated runs.
• If NaviAuto’s delay were under 250 ms: The vehicle would have stopped short even without GeoMaps’ alert in 91% of runs.

Simulations were generated by adjusting one causal factor at a time within the topological model — like holding one defendant’s conduct constant while testing the others.

Conclusion for the Court

The collision was structurally inevitable due to:

1. A software-hardware integration defect in NaviAuto’s perception system.
2. A simultaneous outage of GeoMaps’ safety API.

Each failure removed a layer of hazard mitigation. Together they created a causal chain that no reasonable driver or automated system could have avoided.

Alset Motors is fully exonerated: no defect, no breach, no causation.

Analysis of Recommended Allocation

• NaviAuto Corp.: 65% — Defective subsystem integration; primary source of delay.
• GeoMaps Inc.: 30% — Outage removed redundancy, making delay outcome-determinative.
• SensorCo: 5% — Hardware performed to spec but catalyzed NaviAuto’s flawed integration.
• Alset Motors: 0% — No fault; systems worked as intended.

Rationale:

Allocation weights each party’s control over its failure point, proximity to harm, and foreseeability — the same factors Florida juries consider under comparative fault.

Damages (Assume $10M Total)

• NaviAuto: $6,500,000
• GeoMaps: $3,000,000
• SensorCo: $500,000
• Alset Motors: $0

Important Legal Context (Florida Law)

Florida Statute 768.81 applies pure comparative negligence and eliminates joint-and-several liability for ordinary negligence.

Implications here:

• Each defendant is only responsible for its percentage of fault.
• Plaintiffs cannot shift uncollectible shares onto blameless defendants.
• In multi-defendant, high-tech litigation, precise apportionment supported by dynamic mapping can prevent an innocent party from being unfairly burdened.

Conclusion: From Hypothesis to Legal Breakthrough

In Epiphanies or Illusions, Parts One and Two, the question was whether AI could uncover genuinely new patterns across fields — epiphanies that expand understanding rather than seductive illusions. Those articles were written before GPT-5 existed.

Now it does.

The Shape of Justice is the first application of my hybrid-multimodal method with GPT-5 in a legal context. The improvement is clear: GPT-5 doesn’t just suggest connections; it carries them into a coherent framework that respects the rigor of each domain. Here, it fused the geometry of topology with the doctrines of causation and comparative fault to produce a dynamic liability map that stands up to both mathematical and legal scrutiny.

As the closing scene suggests, it points to a future where human advocates and AI work side-by-side — reading the same evidence, interpreting the same patterns, and building cases together.

Using text prompting, structural mapping, simulation modeling, and seasoned legal analysis, GPT-5 and Losey are now building tools together that can:

• Precisely locate the origin of each causal lane.
• Map where those lanes converge in time and effect.
• Quantify “what if” outcomes.
• Support evidence-based liability allocation.
• Fully exonerate a blameless defendant.

The Autonomous Vehicle Pile-Up example is synthetic, but the principle is not. With real discovery data, the same method could be applied to actual cases, giving lawyers, judges, and mediators a clearer, more persuasive picture of complex causation.

The question I asked in Parts One and Two was whether AI could help us tell the difference between genuine insight and comfortable illusion. With GPT-5, at least in this domain, I think we have our answer.

The shape of justice is not a scale. It’s a flowing, multidimensional space — a living structure where facts, causes, and consequences map across the legal landscape like tides over a reef.

PODCAST

As usual, we give the last words to the Gemini AI podcasters who chat between themselves about the article. It is part of our hybrid multimodal approach. They can be pretty funny at times and provide some good insights. This episode is called Echoes of AI: The Shape of Justice: How Topographic Network Mapping Could Transform Legal Practice.  Hear the young AIs talk about this article for 20 minutes. They wrote the podcast, not me. 

Ralph Losey Copyright 2025 — All Rights Reserved

This entry was posted on Monday, August 18th, 2025 at 2:22 pm and is filed under AI Instruction, Evidence, knowledge, Lawyers Duties, Metadata, Technology, VENDORS. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.