Lunyo.

The problem

The custody agreement is a static 30-page PDF stored somewhere in Google Drive or email, written in dense legal language with no search logic for plain-language questions. The administratively engaged parent — who is usually the primary residence parent — opens it rarely and re-reads it less often, even though daily decisions about expenses, schedules, and communication depend on what it actually says.

The result is recurring friction: invoices arrive, the parent forwards them to the ex in naive optimism, the ex disputes the split or ignores it, the user has to re-read the agreement, do the math, and draft a calm message — for the third time this month. Existing co-parenting apps are glorified shared calendars that require both parents to participate; if one parent won't engage, the product delivers zero value.

The solution

Lunyo replaces the static PDF with a conversational interface grounded in the user's specific custody agreement. Sophie uploads her divorce judgment once at onboarding; the document is chunked, embedded, and indexed; she can then ask any plain-language question ("Who pays for theatre class?" "Is school lunch covered under 'extracurricular' or 'food'?") and get an answer with a direct article citation.

Lunyo then handles the next step automatically: an Expense Calculator computes the split per the agreement, and the Message Generator pre-drafts a neutral, factual message to the ex. The full loop — invoice received → reimbursement request sent — runs in under 3 minutes with no legal research and no emotional friction.

How it works

Three AI features operating on a single substrate: the custody agreement (PDF, max 20MB, typical 15–40 pages, user upload one-time at onboarding). RAG chunking + embedding builds the personalized knowledge layer; every subsequent feature is grounded in the user's exact legal text.

System prompt v1.0 frames the AI explicitly: calm, empathetic family mediator — not a lawyer, not a judge. Warm, factual, neutral tone. Never takes sides. Always cites the relevant article when answering a custody question. Test cases cover happy paths (expense split with clear article, holiday custody, communication tone), edge cases (ambiguous agreement, missing article, conflicting clauses), and negative cases (legal advice requests redirected to a real lawyer).

Who it's for

Primary user: Sophie, 34, Paris — the administratively dominant parent in a shared-custody arrangement. Divorced 18 months ago, two children (6 and 9), shared custody with alternating weeks, full-time marketing manager. Tracks all the invoices, manages the school comms, handles the medical appointments, and does the bulk of the operational logistics — alone.

Buyer = end-user: Lunyo is direct-to-consumer, no intermediary. Demographic: divorced or separated parent, aged 28–45, France first (broader EU in v2), holding a custody agreement, managing day-to-day co-parenting logistics. B2B2C referral channel: certified family mediators (médiateurs familiaux in France, AFCC-certified in the US) recommend Lunyo to clients post-mediation.

Why it matters

Co-parenting is a regulated, high-emotion, document-driven category that the existing apps systematically under-serve. OurFamilyWizard wins on court-mandated lock-in (judges name it in custody orders, especially in France and the US) — but the lock-in is on the platform, not on document intelligence, which is where the actual user value lives.

Lunyo's structural bets: (1) RAG on the actual custody document is the foundational moat — once a user has uploaded their agreement and the AI is grounded in it, switching products means rebuilding the entire personalization layer; (2) GDPR + EU family law compliance is a real structural defence against US-only competitors trying to expand; (3) mediator referral is a high-trust acquisition channel that bypasses the court-mandated platform competition entirely.

At a glance

Project

Lunyo

Built by

Maxime Dugué

One-liner

RAG on your actual custody agreement — co-parenting AI for expense splits, message coaching, and plain-language answers grounded in your specific divorce judgment.