Technical Architecture
Why Legal Research, KM,
and AI Usually Fail
Most legal tech initiatives fragment your data. Arivu.Legal unifies it within the Microsoft 365 Tenant.
Three Initiatives. Three Systems. Zero Alignment.
Legacy architecture forces lawyers to bridge gaps manually.
Research
✕ Keyword & Folder Bound
✕ Static Retrieval
✕ Manual File Hunting
KM
✕ Separate Silos
✕ Manual Tagging
✕ High Admin Burden
AI
✕ External Indexing
✕ Governance Gaps
✕ High Latency
| CAPABILITY | TRADITIONAL SYSTEMS | ARIVU.LEGAL (NATIVE) |
|---|---|---|
| Research | Keyword & folder based | Concept & matter based |
| KM | Separate systems | Emerges from workflow |
| AI | External platforms | In-tenant, permission-aware |
| Governance | Added later | Inherited from M365 |
How we eliminate the “Bridge”
Unlike tools that use a Universal File Picker to pull data out for external processing,
Paari.Legal lives inside your security perimeter.
Native Indexing
We leverage your existing M365 search schemas. No external indexing, no duplicated data, and zero lag.
Identity-Based Access
AI results are trimmed by the user’s SharePoint permissions in real-time. If they can’t see the file, the AI can’t use the file.
Direct M365 Integration
Zero “middleware.” The solution is deployed as a native app within your M365 tenant, respecting your global Purview policies.
In-Tenant Data Flow
| Data Store | Your Sharepoint |
| Security Layer | Your Purview / SSO |
| AI Engine | ARIVU.LEGAL Native App |
Architectural Conclusion: Data sovereignty is maintained. No “bridge” required.
“AI should sit on top of knowledge.
Knowledge should emerge from workflow.
Workflow should live where lawyers already work.”
— Arivu.Legal Architecture Principle