Test every specific a relator pleaded against the primary source, before the motion to dismiss is due.
A False Claims Act complaint has to plead fraud with particularity. The relator's counsel put specifics on the page, and every one can be tested against an authoritative source.
Your leverage is precision. A complaint that misstates a billing rule, cites a superseded regulation, names the wrong actor, or relies on a figure the public record contradicts, has pleaded a particular that does not hold. Under Rule 9(b) that is a motion-to-dismiss problem, and it is yours to find before your response is due. The relator's side increasingly drafts these complaints with AI, producing fluent, confident specifics whose errors are invisible on a read, including to the lawyer who filed them. Your job is to find the ones that fail verification, on the seal-period clock, with a defensible record of each.
The AI is the witness. The math is the judge. GauntletScore verifies each claim against primary sources, then computes the trust score with deterministic math. The agents gather the evidence; no model sits in the verdict. The same evidence always produces the same score.
GauntletScore runs a dedicated analysis of cause-and-effect claims, testing temporal order, proportionality, and logical structure. A causal chain that fails the test counts heavily against the document. This is built to catch the theory that reads persuasively and does not hold together, which is precisely the theory you want to expose at the pleading stage.
Upload the document at gauntletscore.com. Minutes later you are reading the Gauntlet Report: a trust score with a 95% interval, every flagged claim with its verdict and the primary source behind it, and a cryptographically signed, tamper-evident certificate. You walk into the response knowing which pleaded particulars fail, each with the authority that contradicts it preserved in the record. In a live production run, the engine examined nineteen claims in one fluent, credible document and returned two debunked against the court record, each with the source that contradicts it. Every voting agent independently recommended against proceeding.
LIMITSIt does not make your argument for you, it does not assess the ultimate merits, and it does not verify what no public source can confirm. A claim it cannot check is reported as unverifiable, not as false. The argument is yours to make.
Run the complaint the day you have it, and learn which pleaded specifics fail against the record while you still have room to shape the response.
Build the particularity challenge on specifics independently verified to fail, each with its source, rather than on assertion.
Test the factual and regulatory premises of the allegation against the record before you advise the client on exposure.
There is a complaint on your desk right now with pleaded specifics nobody has tested against the record. Run it. Either they hold and you know the fight you are in, or one fails, and that failure is the motion.