Marco Giacomello.Mens et opusITWork with me
Mens et opus

The log

Three columns: in progress, done, wrong. Mens are the ideas, opus the works that test them. Mistakes stay written: they say more than successes.

5in progress6done3wrong
  1. 2026MensHabeas Mentem, the manuscript18 chapters. Closing the last one: the ten-article Charter.In progress
  2. 2026OpusFirst LX Complexity Score study100 readers, EEG and fNIRS. No BCI document analysed was below the accessibility threshold.Done
  3. 2026Mens“One sensor is enough”No. No single sensor proves understanding. Hence the convergence rule.Wrong
  4. 2026OpusÈ CHIARO?, from beta to waitlistTwo sides: reader and drafter. It changes the structure, not the law.In progress
  5. 2026MensMente e TecnologiaCo-edited with Maria Livia Rizzo, foreword by Luciano Floridi. Neuroscience and law in the same book.Done
  6. 2026OpusNeuro Legal CortexFrom exploratory study to a permanent lab: more readers, more documents, a public method.In progress
  7. 2026OpusFammi capire!Ten comic stories for children. Launch in preparation.In progress
  8. 2026OpusThe name GLINTA product about clarity with a name that needed explaining. It is now called È CHIARO?.Wrong
  9. NowOpusTeaching at Bologna Business SchoolLaw, technology and innovation, with those who will have to decide.In progress
  10. 2022MensThe “product” in legal designA chapter for Wolters Kluwer on designing a legal service as a product.Done
  11. EarlierMens“Make law simple”No. Some things are and will stay complex. The goal is clarity, not surface simplicity.Wrong
  12. EarlierMensLegal ExperienceThere is UX, there is UI. Why not LX? The concept everything else grows from.Done
  13. EarlierOpusThree consulting firmsBetween creativity, technology and law. Projects on privacy, skills e-testing, antitrust, Decree 231.Done
  14. 2019MensTEDxLivornoAn ethical supply chain resolves the conflict between law and technology.Done

See a mistake I don’t? Write to me →

The method

First understand. Then build the thing that proves it

  1. 01

    Observe

    98% miss an absurd clause in an online contract.

  2. 02

    Hypothesise

    The problem isn’t the reader. It’s the presumption that informing is enough.

  3. 03

    Build

    È CHIARO?: snap a contract and see costs, penalties and rights.

  4. 04

    Measure

    Neuro Legal Cortex checks whether the rewritten text is really understood.

  5. 05

    Correct

    Whatever doesn’t hold up goes here, in the “wrong” column.

All products · Open challenges