Expertise Check — Semantic Delegation Distance

How to use this tool

Describe the work Paste a court claim, project brief, medical procedure description, or any case document — or enter the URL of a public filing and click Fetch. You can also upload a PDF or DOCX.

Add the practitioner Paste the bio, LinkedIn profile, CV excerpt, or 'About' page of the person who has been assigned to this work. Or enter the URL of their profile page and click Fetch.

Add the organisation Paste the firm's or hospital's or agency's practice area description — or enter the URL of their homepage or 'About Us' page and click Fetch.

Works for any profession: law, medicine, engineering, finance, construction, IT, academia, or any field where delegation decisions carry professional risk. The system measures the semantic gap between what the work actually requires and what the assigned person demonstrably knows.

Important: This tool analyses the information you provide — it does not independently search for CVs, credentials, or professional histories. Gather and paste the relevant practitioner profile, publication list, and work specifications before running the analysis. The quality of the assessment depends entirely on the completeness of your inputs.

Enter the three inputs

1 — Case / Work Abstract

Describe the specific matter, procedure, or project. What does this work actually involve?

— or paste text below —

Please describe the case or work — at least 20 characters.

2 — Assigned Practitioner

The person who has been assigned to this work. Paste their bio, or enter the URL of their profile page.

— or paste text below —

Please describe the practitioner — at least 20 characters.

3 — Firm / Organisation

The firm, hospital, or agency that appointed this practitioner. Paste their description, or enter the URL of their website.

— or paste text below —

Please describe the firm or organisation — at least 20 characters.

Report Output Language:

Inputs are sent to the analysis engine and are not stored. Results are AI-generated and indicative — not legal or medical advice.

Subsumption Classification

—

Negligence Risk

—

Plain English Summary

—

Instructing Firm

—

Firm SDD

—

Gap

—

pts

allocation
distance

Assigned Practitioner

—

Practitioner SDD

—

📖 Understanding these results

SDD Score (0–100)

0–25Excellent match or overqualified — low risk

26–50Acceptable match with minor gaps — moderate risk

51–70Significant gaps — the work is at or beyond this person's demonstrated competence

71–85High mismatch — substantial risk of error or oversight

86–100Critical mismatch — the assigned person has no demonstrable basis for this work

Subsumption

SUBSUMESPractitioner is more senior than the work requires. Competent despite apparent distance.

WITHIN_DOMAINDirect match. The right person for this work.

ADJACENTRelated but distinct specialism. Knowledge transfer needed.

INSUFFICIENTRight domain, wrong depth. Too junior or under-specialised for the complexity.

MISMATCHEDDifferent field entirely. No conceptual framework for this work.

Competence Matrix

Top-leftSenior person, simple task — SUBSUMES

DiagonalWell matched — level meets complexity

Bottom-rightJunior person, complex task — danger zone

The matrix plots work complexity (horizontal) against practitioner seniority (vertical). A dot above the diagonal = overqualified. Below = underqualified.

Competence Matrix — Complexity vs. Seniority

Legend

Overqualified — skills subsume the work

Well matched — level meets complexity

Danger — complexity exceeds seniority

Perfect match line

Required level

Practitioner position

—

Work Complexity

—

Practitioner Level

—

Required Level

Semantic Delegation Distance

SDD Score

—

out of 100 · higher = greater risk

Case Value: —

Adjustment Factor: —

Dimension	Prac	Firm
Domain Match	—	—
Jurisdictional	—	—
Technical Depth	—	—
Experiential	—	—
Capacity Fit	—	—

Allocation Friction

Friction Score

—

Staffing Analysis Analyzes the alignment gap between the firm's brand competence and the assigned practitioner's background.

Competency Radars

Practitioner Profile

Firm Profile

Hierarchical Assessment

—

Firm vs. Case

—

Practitioner vs. Case

—

Key Gaps Identified

Genuine Strengths

Overall Assessment

—

Realisable Resolution Value

RRV = V × p — value at risk from the identified competence gap

RRV Erosion

—

Resolution Value (V)

—

Realisation Prob. (p)

—

RRV

—

→

Erosion (V − RRV)

—

Direction 1

Represented Party

—

Direction 2

Opposing Party

—

Direction 3

Institution / PI Insurer

—

Adjust Matter Duration

Estimated Duration

months

Monthly Delay Burn

€ 6,000 /mo

Cost Components (all editable — adjust as needed)

Direct Costs

€

Delay & Carry

€

Legal Exposure

€

Settled-Now Exposure

—

Monthly Delay Burn Rate

—

Worst-Case Litigated

—

Time Escalation: —

Exposure Analysis: —

—

This is what systematic measurement looks like.

KYC.co embeds this analysis at the contract layer — so expert impartiality and qualification are verified before appointment, not disputed after failure.

Bad Faith Check (BFM) Network Proximity (NPS) Why these tools ↗ All Papers ↗ Open Account