Best used for
Award signalsMitigationRemedy reasoning
Use this workflow when the research question fits these evidence themes and can be checked against selected sources.
Guided workflow
Remedy and award comparison
Compare remedy reasoning, compensation headings, mitigation, reductions, and award signals across source decisions.
Tribuno provides Employment Tribunal research assistance and legal information only. It does not provide legal advice, representation, or guaranteed outcome prediction.
Workflow contract
When to use this workflow
Each public workflow has a defined research role, explicit boundaries and an expected output shape. It is a starting point for source-cited research, not a route to a legal conclusion.
Not for
Award predictionTariff-style estimatesUnchecked loss evidence
These boundaries keep the workflow away from prediction, unsupported conclusions and unreviewed live facts.
Output shape
Matrix-led remedy research note comparing reasoning patterns while marking evidence gaps and award caution.
Source inputs
What the workflow needs before drafting
A useful workflow starts with focused facts and selected sources. Public examples remain illustrative; real workspace output should use selected decisions and promoted Lens passages.
Remedy questionLoss and mitigation evidenceSelected remedy decisionsReduction reasoning comparables
Source trail
Remedy comparison source trail example
The sample source trail shows the kind of source-family separation this workflow should preserve before any memo wording is trusted.
| Ref | Source family | Research role | Trace shown | User check |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| S1 | ET decision | Fact-pattern comparable | Used to inspect how a tribunal discussed loss evidence and mitigation steps. | Check the dates, earnings evidence, mitigation findings, and whether the remedy context is genuinely comparable. |
| S2 | ET decision | Comparable or distinguishing remedy source | Used to compare how tribunals discuss reduction-style reasoning without turning that discussion into a forecast. | Confirm the type of reduction, factual basis, and how the tribunal explained discretion. |
| S3 | ET decision | Adverse or cautionary comparable | Used to show where remedy analysis turns on missing documents, earnings evidence, or unsupported loss claims. | Check whether the tribunal rejected evidence because of credibility, documentation, causation, or dates. |
Workflow path
A practical sequence for controlled early-access use.
01
Identify the remedy question and decision types.
02
Search for decisions with similar remedy issues.
03
Inspect comparable and distinguishable award reasoning.
04
Draft a matrix-led memo with source caveats.
Sample prompt
The workflow starts with a narrow research question
Example research question
How have tribunals discussed compensation, mitigation, and reductions in comparable unfair dismissal decisions?
Expected output
What Tribuno should produce
The useful output is a source-cited research view, not a definitive answer to the user's legal position.
Comparable decisions
Selected ET decisions should be compared by facts, process, evidence and reasoning, with source links visible.
Lens context
Source Lens findings should be shown separately and promoted only when useful for the memo context.
Research memo
The memo should include a caveat, source labels, limitations and a compact traceability section.
Review the sample before requesting access.
The sample shows the expected structure and caveats without requiring workspace access.