Legislative intelligence for Costa Rica

Audit, draft, and anticipate, with verifiable rigor.

Review a regulatory text, develop a proposal, and track changes in the Assembly. Sirius-Lex connects analysis, drafting, and Legislative Radar so your team can decide with sources, context, and human review.

Discuss your needs View real case

Explore the Radar

Consulting assignments and legislative monitoring with an agreed scope. For legislative offices, caucuses, business associations, professional bodies, organizations, and regulatory teams.

Legislative work moves on several fronts at once.

While your team reviews a file or prepares a proposal, other committees meet, documents appear, and priorities change. Bringing that information together and turning it into useful guidance takes time and attention.

57 legislative offices, multiple caucuses, and simultaneous agendas.

Many files, limited technical time.

Advisory teams must turn long documents into usable guidance for committees, caucuses, or plenary sessions without losing legal precision.

Agendas, documents, and outcomes are published at different times.

Covering several committees means gathering evidence.

A caucus, business association, or professional body needs to know what is scheduled in the committees it cares about and what can be confirmed after each session.

In File 25.616, Sirius-Lex detected a reference to a Criminal Code article the bill itself never creates.

A citation error can change the analysis.

A misattributed reference weakens the bill's legal foundation and exposes the office to late corrections.

Deliverables

What the client receives

Three services connected to your work: Regulatory Analysis to review existing texts, Regulatory Drafting to develop proposals, and Legislative Radar to track bills and committees by your interests. Each has a defined scope and deliverables.

Audit Review what already exists

Constitutional and legal audit

Article-by-article review of the normative text —bill, decree, or regulation— to identify constitutional risks, tensions with legal principles, and issues of normative coherence.

Legal citation verification

Review of each legal reference against current Costa Rican legislation, flagging correct, incomplete, ambiguous, or misattributed citations.

Impact and conflict map

Identification of laws, institutional powers, and secondary effects that may be affected, with cross-analysis of related files to detect duplication, contradictions, or gaps.

Traceable executive report

A PDF or Word report with a summary, findings, sources, risks, and declared coverage. It distinguishes what has been verified from what still needs review.

Analysis example

File 24.717

File preparation
Normative landscape
Citation verification
Risk analysis
Report consolidation

4 critical 23 moderate 0 compliant

Finding · citation check Arts. 12 and 13

They refer to "section III of Article 55" of the Mining Code; the current Article 55 contains no such section: the bill itself creates it.

Source: SCIJ · Law 6797, current Article 55

Draft Build the new, with method

From a public problem to a proposal

Define the problem, review the legal framework, and choose the instrument before drafting. Work progresses through stages and human decisions, with a record of the alternatives.

Draft and rationale

Draft articles and a statement of purpose or recitals, depending on the instrument. The consulting draft declares caveats; preparation for external use has its own requirements and approval.

Guided text correction

Incorporate observations and explore alternatives while preserving context and decisions. Corrections reopen the stages needed to review their effects.

Bill in progress

Illustrative example

Framing
Normative landscape
Decision · Strategy choice

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C

Waiting for your decision

Alternative B chosen
Articles skeleton
Drafting and statement of purpose
Self-audit

Bill drafted

Articles + statement of purpose, ready to review.

Consulting draft · Review required

Anticipate Track what may affect your team

Legislative Radar: from an update to a priority

Track a specific bill or the committees that address the topics you care about. For business associations, professional bodies, civil society organizations, companies, caucuses, and teams representing different clients.

What changes and who may be affected

Organization or client profiles connect topics, keywords, and bills with available updates. Related events are grouped into cases with matching reasons and evidence to decide what deserves attention.

Committee overview

View sessions, bills on the agenda, and changes by date. For committees selected for monitoring, Radar shows outcomes when subsequent evidence exists and flags what still needs confirmation.

Reports for informed communication

Prepare reports by profile with priorities, sources, and impact assessments. Review coverage and freshness, approve the content, and export or send the PDF. Weekly scheduling prepares drafts for human review.

Explore the three perspectives

Interactive example · Fictional data

“For me” brings together updates relevant to the profile of your organization, a client, or the group you represent.

Example profile · Exporters association

6 events · 1 review case

Proposed changes to customs procedures

The association tracks a bill on customs procedures. New institutional responses have arrived: Radar brings them together to review what they may mean for its member companies.

View the evidence in this example

Six institutional responses from the same bill and capture. In Radar, each item keeps its source, occurrence date, and detection date.

The next decision is human

Confirm impact, keep watching without communicating, postpone, or mark as not relevant. High priority is a signal for review.

You do not need to start with a chosen bill: you can also watch a committee for the topics it addresses and review the bills appearing on its agendas. Here are two examples of different interests.

Social Affairs

Professional body · Professional practice

Proposal on professional requirements on the agenda

Outcome pending

Agricultural Affairs

Producers organization · Agricultural marketing

Proposal relevant to its members with subsequent evidence

Discussed with evidence

Being on an agenda does not mean a bill was discussed. “Discussed” does not mean “passed”.

Example profile · Exporters association

Draft for review

Monitoring report

What changed and why it may matter
Available evidence and pending checks
Priorities and next steps

01Prepare
02Review
03Approve
04Send

Weekly scheduling prepares the draft. A person reviews its coverage and freshness before approving and sending.

See a Radar report

An example for a fictional association of commodity exchange brokerage firms, covering Bill 24,781. Includes an executive reading, evidence, priorities, and next steps.

PDF · 5 pages · In Spanish · Period: September 1–7, 2026

Open sample report

Sample draft based on documentary evidence as of its cutoff date. Caveats and pending checks are retained; it does not represent a real client or constitute an official legal opinion.

The agenda shows scheduled activity. Outcomes are confirmed against subsequent evidence in watched committees. Update dates and pending checks show what still needs confirmation.

Request a Radar demonstration

Also: political context to interpret the legislative path

The Political Map complements monitoring with public votes, affinities, and advancement scenarios based on available data. Estimates are distinguished from observed facts and help frame questions; they do not guarantee that a bill will pass or attribute intent to an absence.

Verified real cases

Real files, verifiable findings

These Regulatory Analysis samples illustrate the review of articles, citations, and risks against identified sources. Each case states the analysis date and text version; its figures and status refer to that snapshot, not live monitoring.

Firm hand against criminal recidivism

File 25.616 · In committee · Security and Narcotics

Sirius-Lex audited the bill toughening the criminal treatment of recidivism: 7 articles reviewed and 37 legal references checked against official sources. The analysis identified eight critical findings in the punitive and procedural core of the reform, twelve citations contradicting their own sources, and twenty impacts on current law.

Analysis dated July 25, 2026, on the base text

Finding 01

Alternative measures excluded across the board

The new Article 241 bis closes with a one-line clause: "the precautionary measures provided for in section 244 shall not apply". The current Article 244 is the rule that requires the judge to impose the least burdensome measure whenever it suffices. Excluding it wholesale removes the principle of necessity from every case the new article covers.

Finding 02

An article that promises to expunge records and does the opposite

The new Article 71 quater is titled "Cancellation of criminal records", yet its text regulates no cancellation at all: it orders records to be preserved and only bars disclosure to third parties fifteen years after the sentence is extinguished. Other articles of the bill refer to a cancellation "under Article 71 quater" that does not exist.

Finding 03

Reference to an article the bill never creates

The new Article 241 bis of the Criminal Procedure Code refers to qualified recidivism "under Article 39 ter" of the Criminal Code. That provision does not exist in the current Code, and the bill itself creates it as Article 39 bis, not 39 ter. The error sits in the grounds for a pretrial detention cause.

Report preview

File 25.616

8 critical 9 moderate 1 compliant

19 / 37

citations confirmed against source

detected impacts

7 of 7

articles reviewed

Finding 1 Art. 4

The new Art. 241 bis provides that "the precautionary measures under section 244 shall not apply": the current rule requiring the judge to impose the least burdensome measure whenever it suffices.

Source: Criminal Procedure Code, Law 7594, current Article 244

Verified against current legislation (SCIJ)

The report includes an executive summary, risk status, verified citations, article-level observations, and regulatory impacts. Findings do not replace human legal judgment; they guide technical review, discussion, and correction.

Download partial sample

Metallic mining in Cutris, San Carlos

File 24.717 · Committee-approved · Environment Committee

Sirius-Lex audited the bill authorizing metallic mining in the Cutris district: 25 articles reviewed against current legislation and 23 legal references checked against their sources. The analysis identified four critical findings verified against the current text, including a nationwide reform embedded in a district-level regime, plus twenty-three legal-precision observations.

Analysis dated July 24, 2026, on the updated text

Finding 01

Cyanide drops off the list: a reform with nationwide scope

Article 20 amends subsection k) of Article 103 of the Mining Code, replacing the current "cyanide and mercury leaching" with "mercury amalgamation". Cyanide leaching thereby ceases to appear among the factors the law classifies as environmentally harmful, and Article 103 applies nationwide, not only in Cutris.

Finding 02

Reference to a provision that does not yet exist

Article 12 refers to the "minimum base royalty under Article 55" of the Mining Code, and Article 13 to its "section III". The current Article 55 contains neither that section nor that royalty: the bill itself introduces them through its Article 21. The reference treats as current law a provision that would only exist if this same bill passes.

Finding 03

Concessions shielded against repeal of the law itself

Article 23 provides that concessions shall keep their validity and conditions "even in the event of a total or partial repeal of this law". It attempts to place the regime beyond the exclusive power of the Legislative Assembly to enact, amend, and repeal laws (Article 121 of the Constitution).

Report preview

File 24.717

4 critical 23 moderate 0 compliant

13 / 23

citations confirmed against source

detected impacts

25 of 25

articles reviewed

Finding 1 Art. 20

It replaces "cyanide and mercury leaching" in the current Article 103(k) with "mercury amalgamation": cyanide leaching ceases to be listed as an environmentally harmful factor nationwide.

Source: Mining Code, Law 6797, current Article 103(k) (as amended by Law 8904)

Verified against current legislation (SCIJ)

Download partial sample

Harmonization of the National Electricity System

File 23.414 · Passed first debate

Sirius-Lex audited the bill reorganizing the national electricity market: 79 articles reviewed and 18 legal references checked against official sources, 15 of them confirmed. The analysis identified two critical findings, one of constitutional form and one of internal cross-reference, plus eleven legal-precision observations.

Analysis dated July 24, 2026, on the updated text

Finding 01

A three-law exemption pointing to a list that does not exist

Article 55 exempts "the public companies listed in Article 38" from the public employment, public finance, and public procurement regimes. That article contains no list: the actual list appears in Article 35. The scope of an exemption of that magnitude is left undefined by the text itself.

Finding 02

An autonomous institution requiring a supermajority

Article 17 creates ECOSEN as an autonomous institution, a figure the Constitution reserves for a two-thirds vote of the Assembly (Article 189). Since the rest of the bill depends organically on ECOSEN, a formal defect on that point would compromise the approval procedure of the entire law.

Finding 03

Two repeal criteria that do not match

Article 63 repeals Law 7200 eighteen months after entry into force or once the market becomes operational; Transitory XVI keeps it in force under different conditions with no fixed deadline. Two inconsistent rules within the same text leave it unclear when the prior law ceases to apply.

Report preview

File 23.414

2 critical 11 moderate 1 compliant

15 / 18

citations confirmed against source

detected impacts

79 of 79

articles reviewed

Finding 1 Art. 55

It exempts three public-order laws for "the companies listed in Article 38"; that article contains no list. The actual list of operators appears in Article 35.

Source: the bill's own text, Articles 35, 38, and 55

Verified against current legislation (SCIJ)

Download partial sample

Service

How the service works

We can start with a text, a public problem, or a monitoring need. We agree on the scope, sources, team that will use the results, and delivery format.

Three starting points

You bring a file

We audit it article by article: verified citations, constitutional risks, and normative conflicts, with a traceable report.

You want to develop a proposal

We start with the public problem, compare alternatives, and develop the instrument through human decisions toward a reviewable draft.

You need ongoing monitoring

We define your interests and the bills or committees to watch. Cases and evidence are reviewed to prepare reports and action priorities.

Define the starting point

We identify the text, problem, or interest to track, who you represent, and the decision to prepare. We agree on scope, sources, and deliverables.

Do the work

We follow the relevant workflow: text review, staged development, or Radar monitoring. The team checks the evidence and resolves points requiring judgment.

Deliver and discuss results

We review the report or draft with your team. For monitoring, we agree on what to communicate, what to keep watching, and what needs additional analysis or a proposal.

Scope and frequency

Analysis and drafting are scheduled according to complexity and available sources. For Radar, we define profiles, priority bills and committees, and the frequency of reviews and reports.

Access and support

Radar runs within Sirius-Lex, with organization access and defined permissions. We agree whether the work serves your own institution or a portfolio of clients. Reports are reviewed before they are communicated.

Differentiation

From a document to a decision with evidence

Sirius-Lex organizes work around the text, the file, and the interests you represent. A change identified through monitoring can lead to technical review or a new proposal, with the corresponding scope.

Work	What it contributes	What needs connecting	How Sirius-Lex connects it
Read a document	Understand its content and locate relevant points.	Reading needs to connect with laws, background, and the decision being prepared.	Article-level analysis, identified sources, and context to develop or review a proposal.
Read a document What it contributes Understand its content and locate relevant points. What needs connecting Reading needs to connect with laws, background, and the decision being prepared. How Sirius-Lex connects it Article-level analysis, identified sources, and context to develop or review a proposal.
Check agendas and sources	Find published schedules, documents, and updates.	Changes need to be brought together, matched to interests, and checked for outcomes.	Radar connects committees, bills, and profiles; groups cases; and makes evidence and pending checks visible.
Check agendas and sources What it contributes Find published schedules, documents, and updates. What needs connecting Changes need to be brought together, matched to interests, and checked for outcomes. How Sirius-Lex connects it Radar connects committees, bills, and profiles; groups cases; and makes evidence and pending checks visible.
Team review	Interpret relevance, risks, and institutional context.	Each decision needs to carry through to the corresponding document or communication.	Monitoring decisions, corrections, and reports with review, approval, and delivery states.
Team review What it contributes Interpret relevance, risks, and institutional context. What needs connecting Each decision needs to carry through to the corresponding document or communication. How Sirius-Lex connects it Monitoring decisions, corrections, and reports with review, approval, and delivery states.

Your team keeps the decision: which change needs attention, which finding requires correction, and which document is ready to communicate. Evidence and decisions remain linked to the work.

Audience

Built for teams that prepare legislative guidance

For teams that need to review and propose rules, cover several committees, or explain who may be affected by legislative change.

Legislative advisors and chiefs of staff

Need

They prepare guidance on long texts and their own proposals while needing to detect changes before committee or plenary debate.

Small caucuses and technical coordinators

Need

They need to cover several committees with a small team, distinguish scheduled activity from confirmed outcomes, and focus their review.

Business associations, professional bodies, and organizations

Need

They represent companies, professionals, or interest groups. They need to track bills and committees by topic, assess implications, and prepare observations or reports for their members.

Law firms, consultancies, and cooperation

Need

They manage several assignments or clients and need distinct monitoring profiles, reports by client, and traceable regulatory proposals.

Use cases

When to use Sirius-Lex

Choose the service according to the decision you need to prepare. These scenarios illustrate possible uses, not measured client outcomes.

Review a bill before its committee presentation.
Compare related legislative files to identify duplication or contradictions.
Turn a public problem into alternatives and a regulatory draft for review.
Incorporate observations into a proposal and review the affected stages.
Watch committees addressing the topics of a professional body, organization, or caucus, even before choosing a specific bill.
Track a bill that may affect the members of a business association, trade group, or interest group and prepare their report.

Sources and traceability

Verifiable sources. Human review. Clear limits.

Analysis checks texts against legal sources; Radar identifies documents, schedules, and available evidence of what happened afterward. The source, its date, and what remains unconfirmed are part of the picture.

Evidence and context

Check the source behind a finding or update and why it may matter. Monitoring distinguishes when an event occurred from when it was detected.

Review before communication

Drafts require human judgment. In Radar, critical coverage gaps or unverified freshness block report approval.

Declared coverage

Information depends on available sources and their freshness. Being on an agenda does not prove a bill was discussed; missing evidence stays visible.

Sirius-Lex findings are not an official legal opinion and do not replace human legal review.

Who is behind Sirius-Lex

Mario Pérez Edwards

Founder of UnikPrompt · AI adoption and governance consultant

More than 15 years across finance, project management, and the public sector. Former fiscal risk analyst at the Public-Private Partnership Unit of Costa Rica's Ministry of Finance, evaluating infrastructure projects in coordination with the World Bank, IDB, IFC, and CABEI. Holds a master's degree in project management and founded ObservatorioIA, an independent initiative tracking AI regulation and adoption across Costa Rica and Latin America's public sector. Sirius-Lex applies that institutional judgment to legislative analysis.

LinkedIn unikprompt.com

Contact

What do you need to review, propose, or track?

Tell us which decision your team is preparing. You can identify a text to analyze, a problem to address, or the topics and committees you need to track with Radar.