Disclosure chronology for case assessment

Nothing here is legal advice. A draft is a starting point for a qualified person, not a substitute for one.

A first-pass chronology lets you see the shape of a disclosure set before the case team spends hours reading it in document order. Use this process to produce a dated table, a list of gaps and contradictions, and a short issues list for the supervising lawyer.

Nothing here is legal advice. The output is draft work product for a qualified person to review, not a substitute for their judgment.

1. Set up one review file

Create a spreadsheet called Disclosure chronology - [matter] - [date]. Do not begin by asking the model to decide what the case means. Give it a controlled record of each document first.

Use these columns:

Column	Record
Document ID	The Bates range, disclosure number, or stable file identifier
Date shown	The date stated on the document
Date type	Sent, received, created, meeting date, invoice period, or unknown
Time	Include it where it appears and matters
Author / sender	Name and organisation as shown
Recipient	Name and organisation as shown
Document type	Email, letter, attendance note, invoice, message, report, attachment
Event summary	One neutral sentence describing the event or statement
Source location	Page number, paragraph, email chain position, or attachment name
Date confidence	Confirmed, inferred, or unclear
Review note	Gap, contradiction, privilege question, duplicate, or follow-up

Keep the original documents open while you fill this sheet. A chronology entry must point back to a page or document location. A useful summary without a source location is difficult to check and easy to misstate later.

2. Divide the set into manageable batches

Sort documents by disclosed date or file order. Work in batches that you can independently check, such as one correspondence chain, one witness's documents, or one calendar month. Keep attachments with the document that sent them, but give each attachment its own row if it records a separate event.

Before you use the model, remove material that your firm's policy says must not be put into the chosen workspace. Check the approved route for uploads, retention and access controls. File handling and supported options can vary, so check the current xAI documentation overview before you start.

For each batch, provide the document text or approved extracts alongside the document ID. Ask for structured rows, not a narrative. Use this prompt:

Create draft chronology rows from the documents below.

For each distinct event, return: Document ID | date shown | date type | time | author/sender | recipient | document type | neutral event summary | exact source location | date confidence | review note.

Rules:
- Do not infer a date where none is stated. Mark it unclear.
- Separate the date of an email from the date of an event described in it.
- Preserve uncertainty, qualifications and denials.
- Quote no more than the minimum wording needed to identify the source.
- Flag references to earlier or later documents that are not in this batch.
- Do not make legal conclusions.

Copy the returned rows into the spreadsheet. Treat them as proposed entries, not extracted facts.

3. Check every row against the document

Review the model's output document by document, starting with dates, names and negative statements such as “no meeting took place” or “we were not told”. These are common places for a summary to lose a qualification.

Use this short checking routine for each row:

1. Find the stated date in the original document.
2. Confirm whether it is the document date or the event date.
3. Check that the sender, recipient and copied recipients are correctly attributed.
4. Read the sentence before and after the passage used for the summary.
5. Confirm that the source location lets another reviewer find the wording quickly.
6. Mark the row checked in the Review note field only after doing all five checks.

If a document has no reliable date, do not force it into a precise position. Put it in a separate Undated or unclear section. You can later place it between events only if the document itself supports that sequence.

4. Find gaps and competing accounts

Once the rows are checked, sort first by Date shown, then by Time, and finally by Document ID. Read the chronology as a sequence rather than as individual documents.

Look for three specific patterns:

• A document refers to a call, meeting, attachment, draft, instruction or reply that is not disclosed.
• A date range goes quiet immediately before or after a significant event.
• Two documents describe the same event differently, including differences in who attended, what was said, when notice was given, or whether something happened at all.

Add a new sheet called Gaps and contradictions. Use these columns:

Field	What to write
Issue ID	G-01, C-01, and so on
Type	Missing document, missing period, date conflict, account conflict, identity conflict
Chronology references	The relevant document IDs and row numbers
Neutral description	What the documents show, without deciding which account is right
Material sought or question	The document, period, person or point to check
Priority	High, medium, or low for the supervising lawyer to assess

For example, write: C-03: Email D12 says the meeting occurred on 14 March; attendance note D48 records 15 March. Both identify the same attendees and subject. Do not write that either document is false. The qualified lawyer decides significance and next steps.

5. Produce a short issues list

Create a final sheet or note titled Case assessment issues. Limit each issue to a few lines. The point is to direct the next review, not to argue the case.

Group issues under these headings:

• Chronology gaps: missing periods and referenced but absent documents.
• Conflicting accounts: documents describing the same event differently.
• Date and identity uncertainty: undated records, unclear authorship, forwarding chains and inconsistent names.
• Documents requiring legal review: possible privilege, confidentiality, redaction or disclosure-scope questions.
• Next documents to locate: specific calendars, emails, drafts, attachments, notes or metadata to check.

Use a final prompt only after you have checked the chronology:

Using the checked chronology and gaps list below, draft a neutral case assessment issues list.
For each issue, state the document IDs, the competing or missing material, and the specific follow-up question.
Do not make legal conclusions, assess credibility, or state what should be disclosed.

How to spot a bad output

The output is unreliable if it smooths uncertainty into a clean story. Watch for an exact date where the document gives only a month, an event summary that omits “may”, “apparently” or a denial, or a citation that points to an entire long email rather than the relevant passage.

Also check for duplicate events. An email chain may repeat the same message several times. If the chronology treats each repetition as a new event, it creates a false impression of volume. Keep the original message as the event and record later forwards only where they add a recipient, comment or new timing point.

When the process does not work

If the batch is too messy, reduce it. Start with a single email chain, one custodian or one week. If dates are inconsistent, create an Unclear chronology section rather than guessing the order. If the model invents detail or loses citations, return to the document, tighten the prompt, and ask for fewer rows at a time.

Escalate any question about privilege, disclosure scope, redactions, confidentiality or the significance of an issue to the supervising qualified lawyer. Keep the checked spreadsheet, the gaps sheet and the final issues list together so the case team can trace every point back to the disclosed material.