Pre-Litigation Intelligence  ·  Plaintiff Counsel

Know what the file can prove — before you decide what to demand.

CLARA™ converts the existing record into a disciplined pre-demand workup: liability architecture, proof gaps, damages posture, defense-read analysis, and a sequenced action plan. Designed for consequential plaintiff matters where better preparation can materially change the negotiating posture.

For plaintiff firms handling workplace injury, medical malpractice, and wrongful death cases in Texas and North Carolina.

Request the illustrative report Review engagement options

Attorney-only  ·  No sales call required  ·  No case details or PHI needed for the sample

The Tyler Group
CLARA™ Pre-Demand Intelligence
Illustrative
Reyes v. Lone Star Industrial  ·  Harris County, TX  ·  Workplace Crush Injury
Case Readiness
5.8/10
2 critical gaps open
Modeled Ceiling
$2.93M
All gaps closed  ·  ESTIMATE
Evidence Gaps
4
2 critical  ·  2 standard
Report Sections
14
Illustrative sample architecture
Illustrative Demand Scenario
$2,850,000
OSHA-anchored model  ·  ESTIMATE  ·  counsel decision
Illustrative composite hypothetical matter  ·  CLARA™ v3.3  ·  July 2026  ·  For attorney evaluation only
All figures modeled — not a prediction of outcome for any specific matter
Founder-ledPrincipal judgment on every commissioned report
Source-classifiedMaterial figures sourced or visibly labeled
Defense-readLikely responses tested before release
Attorney-onlyBuilt exclusively for licensed plaintiff counsel
The Decision Advantage

Resolve the five questions that shape the demand.

Counsel does not need another summary of the file. Counsel needs a disciplined answer to what the record supports, where it remains vulnerable, and what to do before positions harden.

01
Is the case ready?
A scored assessment of timing, liability, evidence, damages, and strategic position — before the first number goes on paper.
02
What can the file prove?
Every liability element mapped to evidence in hand, obtainable, or unavailable — before opposing counsel finds the gaps first.
03
What is defensible?
Documented damages separated from scenario-based estimates, with each material figure linked to its record source or modeling basis.
04
Where will it break?
The strongest defense arguments ranked and analyzed before opposing counsel deploys them — with a closure strategy for each.
05
What happens next?
A prioritized action map for evidence, preservation, demand sequencing, and negotiation — staged by when leverage is highest.
The Problem

You carry the risk.
The insurer doesn't.
The defense-side evaluation is already underway.

Contingency work turns every accepted matter into a capital allocation decision. The carrier, corporate defendant, or institutional risk team begins evaluating exposure, proof quality, and negotiation posture before the demand arrives.

CLARA gives plaintiff counsel a disciplined pre-demand workup of the same file: what is supported, what remains unresolved, which defense arguments currently hold, and which development steps could change the posture. The value is not symmetry with the defense. It is avoiding an avoidable information disadvantage while the file can still be improved.

Without a structured pre-demand workup
—Case value is anchored before every loss is documented
—Evidence gaps surface after positions harden in discovery
—Defense arguments dictate your response posture
—Partner time disappears into fragmented file review
With CLARA
✓Verified floor and bounded estimate before the demand is drafted
✓Specific evidence and preservation priorities — while they can still be closed
✓Ranked defense matrix with closure strategy for each argument
✓One integrated work product on a confirmed schedule — founder reviewed
The Framework

CLARA™ — Five Layers of Pre-Litigation Intelligence

Each layer answers a decision counsel must make before demand. Every material assertion is classified by evidentiary status — VERIFIED, PLAINTIFF-REPORTED, INFERENCE, ESTIMATE, QUEUED, or COUNSEL DECISION — so the boundary between the record and the analysis remains visible.

C
Case Threshold & Timing
Known dates and counsel-supplied limitations assumptions are organized into an immediate threshold gate. Unresolved accrual, tolling, or jurisdiction questions are visibly flagged for counsel rather than silently resolved by the framework.
L
Liability Architecture
The theories identified by counsel are mapped element by element against the supplied record. Support is classified as in the file, obtainable, or unresolved; likely defense responses are ranked for counsel's evaluation.
A
Analysis of Damages
Damages architecture built floor to ceiling from the documented record. Economic damages verified against the case file and labeled VERIFIED. Projected and comparable-based figures labeled ESTIMATE with the comparable base disclosed. The ceiling is bounded, not inflated.
R
Research & Evidence Inventory
Inventory of what the supplied file contains, what may need to be obtained, and what may require timely preservation action by counsel. Material gaps identify the likely custodian, record type, supporting proposition, and practical consequence.
A
Attorney Action Map
A counsel-controlled action map sequences proof development, preservation priorities, negotiation posture, and likely defense responses. Modeled stage scenarios remain visibly labeled and subject to counsel's judgment.
What You Receive

One integrated decision document, built around the matter.

Eight core outputs create a consistent analytical spine; the exact report architecture follows the file. Sources, assumptions, gaps, and counsel decisions remain connected throughout.

Module 01
Case Readiness Score
100-point assessment across seven dimensions: SOL status, liability strength, evidence quality, damages documentation, comparable authority, defense exposure, and strategic positioning. Each dimension scored separately so you know exactly where the case is strong and where it isn't.
Module 02
Damages Architecture
Floor-to-ceiling damages map. Economic damages verified against case documents, labeled VERIFIED. Emotional distress and related compensatories calibrated to jurisdiction-specific comparables, labeled ESTIMATE with the comparable base disclosed. The ceiling is bounded — not aspirational.
Module 03
Liability Theory Map
Each cause of action analyzed element-by-element. Evidence in hand, evidence needed, and evidence unavailable — each categorized and cross-referenced to the damages module. Stress-tested against the defense theory most likely to appear in the answer.
Module 04
Defense Anticipation Matrix
The most likely defense arguments visible from the supplied record — ranked by potential impact, each with a practical response path for counsel. Distinguish arguments with documentary answers from those requiring development before filing, and those that remain unresolved.
Module 05
Negotiation Posture Scenarios
Scenario-based modeling of how the negotiation posture may change as proof is developed and litigation risk becomes more immediate. The model is visibly labeled and is not a prediction of carrier behavior or outcome.
Module 06
Evidence Gap Analysis
Structured inventory of the supplied file, material proof that may need to be obtained, and evidence that may warrant timely preservation attention. Priority items identify the likely custodian, record type, supporting proposition, and practical consequence.
Module 07
Preservation & Retrieval Priorities
Matter-specific evidence at risk of loss, likely custodians, retrieval pathways, and timing considerations. Any legal notice or preservation communication remains subject to counsel's review, revision, and transmission.
Module 08
Authority & Comparable Index
Authorities and comparable outcomes indexed with the strongest available identifiers and visible source status. Commissioned reports distinguish verified database records from illustrative, provisional, or counsel-supplied material.
See the Output

A report designed to make the next decision easier.

The Reyes assessment is a Harris County workplace-injury composite hypothetical. It lets counsel inspect CLARA's structure, labeling discipline, and output standard without presenting a constructed example as historical proof.

Illustrative AssessmentComposite hypothetical
CLARA™ Case Readiness Report

Strategic brief · readiness scorecard · evidence-gap map · damages scenarios · defense-read analysis · action map

Request the illustrative report →
What You Can Evaluate

Not a result claim. A transparent look at the working standard.

01

Decision architecture

How the strategic brief turns a large record into immediate questions, dependencies, and counsel-controlled choices.

02

Evidence discipline

How the report separates what the record verifies from what is reported, inferred, estimated, queued, or reserved for counsel.

03

Negotiation posture

How gaps, damages scenarios, likely defense responses, and next actions remain connected rather than appearing as disconnected research.

Integrity Standards

Every material assertion carries its evidentiary status.

Presentation cannot cure an unsupported claim. CLARA's authority comes from making the boundary between the supplied record, the analytical inference, the modeled estimate, and counsel's decision visible on the page.

Standard 01
VERIFIED
A VERIFIED assertion is traceable to the supplied record, with source location identified where the file permits. It is never expanded beyond what the underlying material establishes.
Standard 02
ESTIMATED
An ESTIMATE remains visibly labeled and bounded by its assumptions, source status, and scenario. It may inform counsel's judgment; it is never presented as a verified outcome or guaranteed value.
Standard 03
NOT LEGAL ADVICE
CLARA is an analysis engine. The report is intelligence for use by licensed counsel — not a substitute for attorney judgment. Filing decisions, demand amounts, theory selection, and settlement authority remain entirely with plaintiff's counsel. The analysis informs those decisions. It does not make them.
The Tyler Group

Every report is built for two readers: plaintiff's counsel deciding what to do next, and the defense professional looking for a reason to discount the file.

The Tyler Group formalizes a record-intensive approach to consequential disputes: reconstruct the file, identify where an institution's position and its own evidence diverge, anticipate how decision-makers may respond, and sequence the next move while the record can still be developed.

CLARA supplies the analytical discipline; Raymond E. Tyler supplies the accountable judgment. Every commissioned report is built or substantively reviewed by the principal before delivery. Where specialized clinical review is appropriate, it is incorporated under a defined scope by licensed professionals.

Raymond E. Tyler — Founder & Principal Strategist, The Tyler Group
Prepared for the adverse read.
Raymond E. Tyler, CSSGB
Founder & Principal Strategist  ·  The Tyler Group
01
Institutional defense intelligence

CLARA pressure-tests the supplied record against the mechanisms that shape pre-suit posture: reserve logic, surveillance and SIU escalation indicators, soft-point liability framing, causation attacks, treatment-gap exploitation, and documentation strategy.

02
Institutional response experience

Bank of America: complaints, compliance, and process auditing · U.S. Bancorp: operations and risk mitigation · Target: customer-dispute resolution and escalation.

03
Formal process discipline

Certified Six Sigma Green Belt (CSSGB), with process methodology applied to source classification, repeatable analysis, quality control, and defensible output.

04
Clinical review network

Psychological-damages and functional-impact sections may be reviewed, when in scope, by fully licensed clinicians with 15+ years of experience and licensure in Texas and North Carolina; additional disciplines are incorporated as the matter requires.

Release standard
Every commissioned CLARA report receives substantive principal review, source-status QA, and an adverse-read challenge before delivery to counsel.
Engagement

From fit review to attorney debrief.

Most complete files are delivered within 72 hours. High-volume medical records and unusual complexity receive a confirmed schedule before substantive analysis begins.

1
Submit a Matter Profile
Begin with a non-confidential profile: matter type, current posture, documentation level, broad value band, deadline pressure, and what counsel wants assessed.
The initial fit review considers matter type, posture, file volume, known deadlines, and whether expected recovery and complexity justify the work. No PHI belongs in the public form. Medical-record matters proceed only through the secure substantive-intake process under the applicable data-handling agreement.
2
Analysis + Principal Sign-Off
CLARA evaluates the file across all five layers. Material figures are sourced or visibly labeled. Consequential gaps are classified. The defense matrix is built from the supplied record and explicit assumptions.
The principal reconstructs or substantively reviews the analysis, tests material assertions against their source status, and challenges the likely defense read before release. Most complete files are delivered within 72 hours; medical-record volume and unusual complexity receive a confirmed schedule before analysis begins. Retainer clients receive priority capacity.
3
Report in Hand
A formatted, citation-indexed PDF delivered to counsel: readiness score, evidence-gap map, damages posture, preservation priorities, negotiation scenarios, defense-read analysis, and a sequenced action map.
Reports are prepared at the direction of licensed counsel for use in anticipated litigation. Counsel determines privilege and work-product treatment. Source and working files follow the retention and deletion schedule stated in the executed data-handling agreement.
Case Fit

Built for consequential plaintiff files — not every file.

CLARA is most valuable when documentary complexity, institutional opposition, and potential recovery make a disciplined pre-demand workup economically rational.

CLARA is a strong fit when…

✓The defendant is an institution, carrier, employer, or corporate entity
✓The matter is pre-demand or pre-filing — before positions harden
✓The record contains meaningful documentation to analyze
✓Realistic recovery is generally $250K+ or complexity otherwise justifies the fee
✓Evidence gaps are closeable before the demand goes out

Current focus

·Serious injury and premises-liability matters
·Commercial vehicle and workplace-injury files
·Medical malpractice and wrongful-death matters
·Catastrophic files with substantial medical or economic complexity
·Select institutional-liability matters where the economics justify the work
Engagement Structure

Transparent economics before you commit.

A complimentary fit review determines whether the matter justifies full analysis. If it does not, the answer arrives before the firm spends a dollar.

Single Matter
$4,500
Flat fee · confirmed schedule at intake
CLARA™ Case Readiness Report
For firms that want to evaluate the work on one consequential matter before establishing a recurring relationship.
  • Complete matter-specific analysis
  • Principal review and sign-off
  • Attorney debrief included
  • Secure handling path for medical-record matters
Submit for fit review
Firm Intelligence Partnership
$8,500/mo
2 report credits monthly · 3-month initial commitment
Reserved Analytical Capacity
For plaintiff firms with a recurring pre-demand pipeline and two consequential matters to work up each month.
  • Two CLARA report credits each month
  • Priority scheduling and direct access
  • Standing data-handling agreement
  • Additional reports at $4,250, subject to capacity
Discuss firm partnership
Partnership Fit

Reserved capacity is for a firm where pre-demand quality is a recurring operating question.

01

CadenceTwo or more consequential matters to work up in a typical month.

02

DisciplineA repeatable review gate before demands are finalized.

03

ContinuityPriority capacity and one standing data-handling framework matter.

Report credits refresh monthly. Final scope, payment terms, handling obligations, and matter-specific exclusions are governed by the executed engagement documents.

Medical Records & Confidential Files

Serious analysis requires serious handling.

Initial screening is separated from substantive intake. No medical records or client-identifying case materials belong in the public form.

Review the data-handling posture →
01

Gated intake

Files are requested only after fit, agreement, and payment conditions are satisfied.

02

Contracted handling

PHI matters are routed under the applicable agreement in a BAA-backed environment.

03

Controlled processing

Matter-specific storage; directly identifying records are not submitted to public AI services.

04

Defined deletion

Source files: 7 days after delivery. Working files: 30 days, absent an authorized hold.

Before You Engage

The questions a careful attorney should ask.

Precision about the boundaries of the work is part of the product, not a footnote.

Does The Tyler Group provide legal advice or represent the claimant?

No. CLARA is attorney-directed litigation-support analysis. The Tyler Group is not a law firm and does not make filing, demand, settlement, or litigation decisions.

Is the report generated automatically by AI?

No report is released as unreviewed machine output. CLARA uses structured, AI-assisted synthesis within a controlled workflow. Material assertions are classified, the analysis is challenged, and the principal reviews the final work product.

How are medical records handled?

Medical-record matters proceed only through secure substantive intake under the applicable agreement. Directly identifying records are not submitted to public AI services, and access and deletion controls are defined before transfer.

What does the illustrative Reyes report demonstrate?

It demonstrates structure, labeling discipline, analytical depth, and design standard. Because Reyes is a composite hypothetical, it does not validate accuracy against a historical outcome.

Can a firm test CLARA on a closed matter?

Selectively, yes. A closed file with a known record and outcome lets the firm compare the analysis against its own understanding. Ask about a confidential cold-file evaluation during fit review.

Intake

Start with a non-confidential matter profile.

CLARA is built for plaintiff attorneys and firms handling consequential matters against insured, corporate, and institutional defendants. The initial profile confirms fit without exposing the underlying client's identity or medical information.

If the matter appears suitable, you will receive the next step for secure substantive intake. If it does not, you will know before committing to a paid analysis.

Response Time
Acknowledgment on submission · target fit response within one business day
Confidentiality
Public intake accepts no PHI, medical records, or client-identifying file materials
Direct Contact
hello@tylerstrategy.com
Website
tylerstrategy.com
Start Here

Submit the short matter-fit form.

Provide only the matter type, current posture, broad value band, and what counsel wants assessed. Do not include names, medical facts, records, or other confidential narrative in the public form.

Submit Matter Profile

Initial submissions are handled as confidential litigation-support material. Counsel determines privilege and work-product treatment.

Attorney
Matter
Outside CLARA's scope. CLARA is built for civil plaintiff matters against institutional or corporate defendants. This matter type — or client position — is not a fit. If you believe this is an error, email hello@tylerstrategy.com directly.
Note: CLARA is most effective pre-filing, before negotiating positions are locked. Analysis can still add value at this stage — submit the intake and we'll assess whether it makes sense.
File
Engagement

Initial submissions are handled as confidential litigation-support material. Substantive files follow the retention schedule in the executed Data Handling Agreement. Counsel determines privilege and work-product treatment.