Bench Court: Case Western v. University of Washington, or how my lab protocols went on trial

Description and use

Bench Court formalizes lab protocol disputes by creating cases, having an automated clerk agent file briefs, a human judge issues rulings, and the rulings are stored as lab rules that the Aliquot agent enforces.

Problem

Lab protocols contain disputed numeric values that vary across institutions, leading to inconsistent practices and undocumented decisions.

Outcome

Bench Court formalizes protocol disputes, produces documented rulings, and integrates them into the lab’s automated agent, ensuring consistent and traceable lab practices.

Workflow

• Create a case document for each disputed value
• Clerk agent reads claims, opens case via Sanity Workflows, and files a brief summarizing sources and recommendation
• Human judge opens the case in a courtroom App SDK, reviews exhibits and brief, writes a ruling, and selects a verdict (Sustain, Overrule, Both apply, Dismiss)
• Ruling is written back into the dataset as a labRule document
• Aliquot agent applies lab rules before external sources, updating its responses

Evidence

Labs run on numbers that reputable sources can't agree on. How long should 1:10 bleach sit on a spill? The University of Washington says 30 minutes, UC Santa Barbara 20, Case Western 15–20.

Source

Bench Court puts those disagreements on trial.

Source

The clerk agent reads every claim about that parameter, opens the case through Sanity Workflows and files a brief.

Source

The ruling is written back into the dataset as a lab rule.

Source