How your draft gets revised: loops and section regen

Every full draft job runs the same first loop. Petria drafts the petition, extracts the citations it made, verifies each one against your exhibits, then redrafts to fix what verification flagged. Report generation follows, which is why the verification report you download already reflects the redraft rather than the first pass.

On Pro and Enterprise, the pre-filing gap analysis runs after that first loop is finished. It reads the redrafted document, so its findings are about the draft you will actually review.

Enterprise adds a second automatic loop. When a job is set up for two loops and gap analysis produced findings, Petria runs a gap redraft that targets those findings specifically. It is not a rewrite of the whole document, and it keeps your approved outline. The second loop can decline to run: if gap analysis produced nothing worth redrafting against, or the findings are not something a redraft can fix, the gap redraft is skipped and the job completes on the first loop's output. That is expected behavior rather than a failure. The completed job records how many loops actually ran.

Two related points cause confusion. Gap analysis running is not the same as the second loop running: on Pro you get the anticipation report but no gap redraft. And the loop count shown on a completed Enterprise job can read as one loop if the gap redraft was skipped.

The practical consequence is what you compare. On Standard, compare the draft against the verification report. On Pro, compare the draft against verification and anticipation together, then decide by hand what to strengthen. On Enterprise, expect the delivered draft to have already absorbed the fixable gap findings, and use the anticipation report to see what was left for you. More loops do not make a draft filing-ready; they reduce the number of mechanical fixes an associate has to make. Judgment calls, strategy, and the decision to file stay with your team.

Beyond the automatic loops, Enterprise also gives you a manual, targeted option: section regen. It regenerates a single section of a draft while keeping the approved outline intact, without rerunning the whole job. You pick the section by its key from your approved structure, add attorney notes describing what you want different, and run it. The rest of the document is left alone. The job has to be completed or still processing for regen to be available, and the action is recorded in your firm's audit log along with whether notes were provided.

Use section regen for the cases where a rerun is overkill: a section that argues the right point in the wrong order, a paragraph that leans on an exhibit you have since replaced, a passage a partner wants tightened. Attorney notes are the steering mechanism, so be specific about what should change rather than describing the problem in general terms. Section regen is not the tool for a structural change; if the outline itself is wrong, regenerating sections inside it will not help.

That distinction matters because your approved structure is the outline Petria learned from your voice samples and your team signed off on during onboarding. Minor edits to it are included in Enterprise: section titles, ordering, notes about what belongs where. Those are the kinds of adjustments a firm makes as it uses the product. Re-learning the structure from scratch is different. That means uploading new voice samples and running the analysis again, which is a paid onboarding refresh rather than a settings change. Firms usually want this after a genuine change in how they file, not after one case went sideways.

If you are not sure which of the three you need, look at where the problem sits. A section that says the wrong thing is a regen. A document that opens in the wrong order on every matter of that type is a structure edit. A house style that has moved on since onboarding is a refresh, and support will scope it with you. The approved structure panel shows the current outline per jurisdiction, so you can check what production jobs are actually drafting against before deciding.