This comparison updates live and is available at every step — open it any time from the Matter strength tile at the top of any screen, so there are no surprises.
Strength & completeness comparison
Two objective measures, side by side, for each party — overall and by component. Strength is the objective merit of a position; completeness is how much of the needed evidence is in. They are scored the same way for both sides.
This informs your decisions; it does not make them. The feedback is about evidence completeness and quality — not legal strategy. JusticeX does not interpret law, predict outcomes, or recommend arguments. You and your counsel decide; the parties reach their own agreed view.
Overall objective strength
Merit of each position · 0–100 · sum of the components below
A
72
B
68
Overall completeness
Share of needed evidence provided · 0–100%
A
86%
B
81%
Both metrics are shown for every component below. Completeness is what the evidence-quality notes explain — close those gaps and strength follows.
Public legal precedent — optional reference. Show cited statutes & public case law alongside each component, for your consideration only. JusticeX never interprets it or suggests how a court would rule.
By component
ComponentStrength (A / B)Completeness (A / B)Completeness & quality notes
Asset & property disclosureMarital estate, accounts, real property
A
88
B
64
A
95%
B
60%
Completeness & quality
Party A: all six accounts and both properties documented and reconciled.
Party B: two brokerage accounts disclosed without statements — values unverified. Adding them lifts both completeness and strength.
Reference: DRL §236(B)(4) requires full financial disclosure (Statement of Net Worth). Public source, for context only.
Income documentationWages, self-employment, benefits
A
70
B
82
A
72%
B
90%
Completeness & quality
Party A: most recent pay stub and one year of returns missing — recency reduces completeness.
Party B: W-2s, three years of returns, and current stubs all present.
Reference: CSSA (DRL §240(1-b)) defines income inputs for support. Public source, for context only.
Parenting plan & custodySchedule, decision-making, best interests
A
66
B
69
A
80%
B
82%
Completeness & quality
Both parties: proposed schedules and caregiving history are well documented and closely matched.
Open item: religious-upbringing decision is unaddressed by both — completing it lifts both.
Reference: DRL §240(1)(a) "best interests" factors. Public source, for context only.
Maintenance basisSpousal support inputs & duration
A
61
B
58
A
55%
B
52%
Completeness & quality
Both parties: the income figures feeding the guideline are not yet reconciled — the largest single completeness gap.
Reference: DRL §236(B)(5-a) maintenance guideline (capped payor income). Public source, for context only.
JusticeX is a software platform — not a law firm or mediator. Objective, mathematical comparison only; the parties reach their own agreed view. Full legal & UPL disclaimer. Synthetic demo — no real person.
JusticeXObjective comparison