I attempted a side by side comparison between your tool and the for pay Gemini Advanced 1.5 Pro with Deep Research for a particularly interesting and challenging task, but it is difficult to benchmark the results. Gemini did an overall poor - average job, but only after many manual additional prompts.
Initial prompt:
"what are the highest judgements received by tenants for claims relating to either negligent or intentional infliction of emotional distress in the last 10 years, against landlords in Massachusetts?"
result - it couldn't find anything
I further revised the workflow with prompts such as
"Please note it may also be in landlord lawsuits against tenants, where tenants win in counter claim"
"There may be some useful results there, but . regenerate following my two stated criteria of "in the last 10 years" and "In Massachusetts" and afterwards try to assess why your process missed this obvious mistake in its final output, and share with me your self analysis"
"please consider a few ways that your filtering can be expanded while still satisfying my criteria. 1. There are various statutory frameworks within which "negligent infliction of emotional distress" or "intentional infliction of emotional distress" can be brought. It could be in the context of Chapter 93A consumer protection, it could be in the context of M.G.L. c. 186, §14 , in particular when in counter claim in an eviction matter. 2. Those landmark older cases can be very helpful if you search cases that cite them, in particular simon vs. solomon and Haddad v. Gonzalez. 3. It is more diffiult to find regular cases than binding case law, a few suggestions, certain trial courts like the Western Division of the Massachusetts Housing court publishes it's 'court reporter' which is basically a data dump of almost all of their case rulings. 3. You were wise to scrape masscases.com as it has unpublished as well as published decisions which are of interest to me, and they use a scrape friendly URL scheme. judyrecords.com, trellis.law, docketalarm all chose to allow being crawled by google for purposes of appearing in google search results. The information I seek can almost always be inferred purely from the information made available to google, for example {massachusetts emotional distress tenant site:trellis.law} without the {} braces returns many cases. Please try again"
"Rader v Odermatt is an excellent example of a case matching my criteria. The tenant prevailed in counter claim, and was even awarded duplicative damages, normally discouraged and rare. Try to assess how you missed this case, output a revised list but also output your self analysis in your work flow"
I have omitted the self-analysis provided by Google, it was generally correct but as it recognized on its own, it failed to apply weights properly to my revisions. The other major hurdle of course is that for quazi-legal, sometimes technical, and due to outright politcal bias, most lower court, which in a way means "real cases", are very hard to find and even harder to scrape. I tried prompting with scraping strategies but in the end hardly any meaningful results were found. I had a certain results ready to assess its effectiveness. Unfortunetly your tool gave me the same error as stated by others upon just the first prompt