A question a lawyer in BiH can never quite close. And why we built Amiro around it.
There is one question that an in-house lawyer carries with them, and can never quite close.
It is not about whether they can find a document. It is about whether they can be sure they have found everything: that somewhere, three levels down, there is no provision that overrides what they just cited.
In Bosnia and Herzegovina, that question has unusually much room to remain open.
A law that does not sit in one place
The BiH legal system is divided into several levels: state, entity, cantonal, Brčko. Layers that overlap and sometimes contradict. A cantonal provision can quietly derogate one you were sure was in force. Official gazettes at multiple levels at once, each with its own rhythm of changes.
For a lawyer who carries legal risk alone within a company — at a bank, at a telecom, at a retailer, where there is often neither team nor partner for a second check — this is not an academic question. When they give an answer, that answer becomes the company's answer. And when it is wrong, the name underneath is theirs.
The danger has never been that they will not find a document. The danger is that they will find it, cite it, and still miss the level above or below that changes everything.
What general AI does with that problem
The tool a lawyer has already opened in their browser, a general AI like ChatGPT, does not close that question. It makes it worse.
It answers immediately and with full confidence, but from memory, with no model of which level actually governs. It cannot tell whether a cantonal provision derogates the one it just cited. And easy confidence is precisely what the instinct of an experienced lawyer has learned not to trust.
This is not a suspicion of one product, but of a pattern. A 2024 Stanford study showed that even the leading legal tools that market themselves as „hallucination-free" misquote or fabricate the source in 17% to 33% of cases. The category claims to be grounded. Few in it can actually show it.
The line we drew
Amiro began with a refusal.
We built it around one decision we do not cross: the answer is never separated from its source, and nothing is said before it can be shown.
In practice, this means the following.
Amiro answers only from the actual text of BiH law: state, entity, cantonal, Brčko. Every answer opens onto the exact provision it came from — yours to open and check before you have to believe anything.
When the law is genuinely unclear, when there is no grounded answer in the corpus, Amiro says so. It does not deliver a confidently wrong answer; it offers you the closest related provisions, with sources, and leaves the judgment to you. Confident inaccuracy is the one thing the whole tool is built against.
Speed is a consequence, not a promise
Amiro is first of all a responsible engine: a tool that returns legal questions to the text of the law, and opens the source of every answer. Speed is a consequence of that core, not a promise that stands before it. Everything we build around it, we build so that core holds.
What Amiro gives you is a place where the question did I cover everything no longer has infinite room to stay open. The answer stands in the law, with the source shown, or it is not given at all.
Check us before you trust us
The best way to assess this is not to listen to us.
Ask Amiro something you already know the right answer to. Open the source it offers. Check whether it is right. And, just as importantly, whether it has the honesty to say when it is not sure.
That is the test we built it for.