Obsidian 4.6.
Legal research with the source still attached.
Obsidian 4.6 is Pak Legal Database's agentic legal research system built on Grok 4.6. It searches case law and legislation, reads full judgments, checks citations, compares precedent and keeps the underlying legal source within reach.
Finding a case is only the start.
Legal research is not complete because a search result looks relevant. The authority has to exist, the judgment has to say what you think it says, the statutory position has to be checked and the cases going the other way still have to be found.
Obsidian was built around that problem. Its research corpus now contains 274,097 indexed documents, with 269,066 judgments available for case-law research. Its legislation layer contains 5,103 statutes.
It does not rely on one search.
Obsidian can move between structured legal records, semantic retrieval, full judgment text, source PDFs and legislation during the same research request.
PostgreSQL
Structured citations, courts, dates, case information and legal metadata.
Vector Search
Finds conceptually relevant authorities even where the wording differs.
Full Judgments
Moves beyond summaries and works with the underlying judgment text.
Original PDFs
Keeps the authority connected to its source for direct verification.
Legislation
Searches statutory provisions alongside the cases interpreting them.
It can read the judgment before forming the answer.
A headnote or short case summary is useful for discovery. It is not a substitute for the judgment.
When an authority becomes important to the research, Obsidian can examine the full judgment: the facts, procedural history, arguments, reasoning and final conclusion.
The underlying PDF remains connected to the authority so the user can move from the answer back to the actual source.
From answer back to authority
- Locate the relevant authority
- Read the underlying judgment text
- Identify the relevant reasoning
- Verify the citation against the corpus
- Connect the answer to the original PDF
- Open the source for independent checking
A citation should survive a check before you rely on it.
General-purpose AI can produce an authority that looks convincing even when the citation is inaccurate or does not exist. Obsidian includes a citation-verification stage within its research workflow.
Before an authority is treated as verified, the system can ask:
- Does the judgment exist in the corpus?
- Does the citation correspond with the correct case?
- Is the authority connected to an underlying judgment?
- Can the original source be opened?
- Can the cited material be traced back to the PDF?
Where an authority cannot be independently confirmed, Obsidian can identify it as not verified in corpus instead of presenting it as confirmed.
See the research operations as they happen.
Obsidian exposes the main retrieval and research operations being carried out while a question is processed. The trail is there to show what the research system is doing—not to display the model's private internal reasoning.
It also looks for the case against your position.
Useful research should not stop as soon as three favourable authorities appear.
Obsidian can separately search for contrary and distinguishable judgments and compare why a court reached a different result.
Example
A question about release of a vehicle on superdari may produce cases supporting temporary custody in favour of the registered owner.
The same research can also identify cases where release was refused because of disputed ownership, statutory restrictions, tampered identification numbers or other distinguishing circumstances.
The useful answer is not only what the rule is, but where the rule stops.
Fast when you need the answer. High when the matter deserves more.
Not every question needs a deep-research cycle. Obsidian gives the researcher two modes depending on the work in front of them.
Fast
Fast is designed for roughly 90% of everyday legal research. It is focused, quick and still capable of running case-law searches, retrieving legislation, reading judgments, locating contrary authority, verifying citations and producing source-grounded answers.
- Case-law research
- Legislation research
- Full-judgment analysis
- Contrary authority search
- Citation verification
- PDF and source linking
- Uploaded-document analysis
High
High is deliberately slower. It is intended for matters where breadth and depth matter more than obtaining the quickest good answer.
The system can spend more time exploring alternative formulations of the issue, retrieving additional authorities, reading more judgment material and producing a broader legal synthesis.
- Complex or unusual legal questions
- Competing lines of precedent
- Multiple statutory provisions
- Detailed distinction between authorities
- Large uploaded documents
- Research supporting substantial legal drafting
Same research system. Different depth.
| Feature | Fast | High |
|---|---|---|
| Speed | Fast | Slower by design |
| Best suited for | Everyday research | Complex research-heavy matters |
| Case-law search | Yes | Yes |
| Legislation | Yes | Yes |
| Full judgments | Yes | Deeper review |
| Citation verification | Yes | Yes |
| Contrary precedent | Yes | Broader review |
| Research breadth | Focused | Broader |
| Recommended use | Default | When depth matters more than speed |
What a deeper research request can involve.
The exact route changes with the question. A complex request can move through several research stages before the answer is formed.
01 Identify the legal issue +
02 Search structured legal data +
03 Run semantic searches +
04 Search alternative formulations +
05 Retrieve legislation +
06 Read the underlying judgment material +
07 Compare supporting authorities +
08 Search contrary precedent +
09 Verify citations +
10 Form the answer +
Basic RAG and Obsidian are not the same workflow.
| Capability | Basic RAG | Obsidian 4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| Single vector retrieval | Common | Not limited to one search |
| Structured PostgreSQL search | Usually no | Yes |
| Semantic vector search | Yes | Yes |
| Multiple query formulations | Usually no | Yes |
| Full judgment analysis | Limited | Yes |
| Original PDF source | Limited | Yes |
| Page-level PDF linking | Usually no | Supported |
| Statutory research | Limited | Yes |
| Citation verification | Usually no | Yes |
| Contrary precedent search | Usually no | Yes |
| Visible research trail | Usually no | Yes |
| Large-context analysis | Varies | 500K context |
| Fast + High research modes | No | Yes |
Why a 500K context window matters in legal research.
A difficult legal question may involve several long judgments, legislation, pleadings, contracts and uploaded material at the same time.
Obsidian 4.6 operates with a 500,000-token context window, giving it room to work across unusually large quantities of legal material within the same research context.
Particularly useful when:
- Several lengthy judgments must be compared
- Multiple statutory provisions interact
- A large pleading or contract is uploaded
- Different lines of precedent must be distinguished
- The answer depends on context rather than a single paragraph
Source-grounded does not mean blind trust.
No AI research system is completely immune from error. Retrieval, full-document access and citation verification are designed to reduce common failures, particularly fabricated or unsupported authorities.
Confirming that a judgment exists is also different from guaranteeing that every interpretation of it is correct.
For professional legal work, the original judgment or statutory provision should still be reviewed before it is relied upon in court, formal advice or legal drafting.
Get more useful research from Obsidian.
Start with Fast
It is intended to handle the vast majority of normal legal research.
Use High when it matters
Switch when the issue needs broader authority and deeper treatment.
Give it the legal issue
Facts, jurisdiction, statutory provision and procedural posture help.
Upload relevant material
Pleadings, orders and documents can provide useful factual context.
Read the cases against you
Contrary authorities often matter as much as the favourable ones.
Open the judgment
Verify the source and relevant passage before relying on the authority.