Answers, not sales copy.

Family-law attorneys, guardians ad litem, and CPS caseworkers who need a high-volume coparenting record turned into something usable without days of manual review. Professionals commission and receive the Report; parents and case subjects hold no standing account.

Book a consult or request the Report directly. We'll scope your matter, walk you through what we need, and set you up with a secure upload link — never email. That upload link is a ShareFile feature we have configured rather than proven: we have not yet completed our own end-to-end verification of it, and we have not yet run the intake process on a live matter.

Exported texts, coparenting-app logs (e.g. OurFamilyWizard, TalkingParents), and email threads. We'll advise on the cleanest export format for your specific sources during intake.

A source-linked verbatim chronology (every row bound to its source record's SHA-256), an interactive dashboard that runs offline, a Bates-numbered exhibit set with an auto-index, and authentication data for counsel. See the full breakdown.

Admissibility is counsel's determination, not Pyra's. The Report is built as an FRE-107 illustrative aid with authentication data (FRE 901/902) attached to support your own foundation — it is not offered as a certified FRE 1006 summary or as evidence in itself.

No. The Report and Dashboard are descriptive only — counts, timing, and structure, shown with equal weight for both parents. There are no scores, risk ratings, credibility assessments, or parenting evaluations anywhere in the deliverable.

By literal-term recall — the chronology is tagged for human review, not scored or ranked. This surfaces likely-relevant entries; it is not exhaustive and never replaces reading the full record yourself.

A refresh run extends the existing chronology through a new date, rather than starting over — useful ahead of a follow-up hearing. Ask us to scope one when you request the initial Report.

Names and identifying details are replaced with consistent opaque tokens before the record is chronologized — de-identification is an early pipeline step, not a final scrub, and a human review pass is part of every delivery. Full detail: Security & data protection.

Every exhibit, and every row of the chronology, carries the SHA-256 content hash of the source record it came from, and the finished package ships with a manifest listing a SHA-256 for every file in it. Recompute a hash and compare: if it differs, the content changed. One honest limit — that manifest travels inside the package, so on its own it catches corruption and single-file edits rather than a deliberate, coordinated alteration. We can give you the package's root hash separately, outside the delivery, and checking against that value is what makes the verification independent.

No. Each matter sits in its own folder in the Professional Portal, and we grant access only to the single professional who commissioned it — never to a shared parent folder. That isolation is how we have configured Progress ShareFile, which hosts the Portal; it is configured rather than independently verified by us end-to-end, and our own rule is that we verify it with a test account before any real matter is onboarded.

Not yet. We say so plainly rather than imply otherwise. See the security page for what's true today and what's on the roadmap.

Through the Professional Portal — a secure file space hosted on Progress ShareFile — never by email. Two-factor sign-in is switched on for every account in our ShareFile configuration; that is a setting we have configured rather than a control we have independently verified end-to-end, and we would rather say so than imply more. See how the Portal works.

No — nobody outside the commissioning professional gets an account or can read a matter. There is one narrow, deliberate exception in the other direction: when a parent needs to send you source records, we issue a private upload link into that matter's folder only, set to expire on a date you choose. It uploads to that matter and reads nothing back. The link is a Progress ShareFile file request; its per-matter scoping and its expiry are settings we have configured rather than controls we have independently verified.

Not yet, and we would rather say so plainly than let you find out after you have signed. Every matter you commission has its own folder in the Portal, holding its source records and its deliverables, and you can move between them — but there is no single dashboard listing them side by side with status and deadlines. That view is on the roadmap and is not built. If you are carrying enough matters that the folder-by-folder view would be a problem, tell us before you commission, because that is a reason to wait.

Pricing is scoped per matter based on record volume and complexity. A deposit is collected at intake, with the balance due on delivery — we never auto-fulfill against a card on file. Request a quote.

Usually the Report is commissioned by the GAL and billed as a case cost, allocated the way the court directs — the same way other case-related expenses are handled. How that lands in your matter is between you and the court, and nothing here is advice on fee allocation. Ask us about GAL-specific engagement when you reach out.

The Pyra Report is structured as a litigation-support cost, the same category as a records-review service or a forensic extraction, and clients commonly pass it through as a case expense. Whether it can be in your matter depends on your engagement terms and your court — we can't answer that for you, and this isn't advice.