The last century has seen a huge increase in the quantity of law that is written out explicitly in statutes [1], rather than being worked out on a case-by-case basis according to the common law method. This is an attempt to “improve the language” as you have suggested, but it has not made the law easier to comprehend. Detailed statutes make it harder for lawyers to build up a coherent picture of the entire legal system, because there’s a much greater risk that a solid argument based on general principles collapses due to a specific statute that the lawyer has never heard of.
Again, this points to poor scoping, an imprecise language and a broken system. According to your assertion it's currently impossible for even professionals to know what should be considered in scope. This should be the trivial basis of a legal case, not the difficult and dubious extended research result of paid professionals.
Yes, that is my assertion – it’s impossible to verify that you have considered and correctly interpreted all relevant law, although it should be rare for professionals to make a mistake, especially after extended research. I’m curious as to what makes you think this problem can be solved trivially? Formal verification is hard enough for algorithms over the integers.
Law needs to be rewritten to be efficient and transparent. Logically speaking, the first countries to do so should score major investments and trade bonuses from multinationals. If you have a tinpot dictatorship with US protection or an out of the way novelty country with few useful industries, you could do worse than throw down on this project.
[1] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/when-laws-become-...