LearnGrokNothing here is legal advice. A draft is a starting point for a qualified person, not a substitute for one.
Use these prompts to prepare an interview plan that can be followed in the room and checked against the case materials. They are for solicitors and investigations teams working with pleadings, documents and known issues before taking witness evidence.
Nothing here is legal advice. The output is a draft work product. A qualified person must decide the interview approach, the questions to ask and how any evidence should be used.
Choose the right starting prompt
Start with Build the master interview plan if you have enough material to map the whole interview. It creates a chronology-led plan and a separate document-led section. This is normally the working document for the interviewer.
Use the other prompts where the work has a narrower problem:
| If you have | Use this prompt | What you get |
|---|---|---|
| A chronology but no usable questions | Turn a chronology into questions | Questions ordered by event, with gaps exposed |
| A small number of important documents | Prepare document-led interview questions | Questions on creation, receipt, meaning and missing context |
| Conflicting accounts or an incomplete bundle | Test inconsistencies and evidence gaps | An issue matrix and neutral testing questions |
| A near-final plan | Run the pre-interview quality check | A corrected plan and an interviewer run sheet |
Key point
Start from the source
Ask for the witness's own account before using a document to test, clarify or challenge it.
Prepare the material before pasting it
Give the prompt an evidence index rather than an unlabelled block of text. For every document, include its document ID, date, type, author, recipient and page or paragraph reference. If the document is an email chain, identify which messages and attachments are included. A plan cannot reliably distinguish a missing attachment from an irrelevant one if the input does not say.
For the pleadings, include the pleading name and paragraph number. Do not reduce the pleading to a broad issue label such as “knowledge” or “loss”. Paste the relevant wording or a careful summary with its paragraph reference. The plan needs to show what is alleged, not merely the team’s recollection of it.
Set out known issues separately. Examples include an uncertain meeting date, a disputed document author, a witness who joined after the event, or a gap in the message record. This stops the model treating an unresolved point as established fact.
Note
Keep source labels stable
Use the same document IDs in the evidence index, chronology and interview plan. Changing DOC-14 to “the April email” makes checking slower and creates avoidable errors.
Build questions in two passes
First, obtain an account by event. Ask what happened, who was present, what was decided, what the witness did next and what records were created. Then move to the documents. Ask whether the witness created, received, read, sent, stored or acted on the document, before asking what particular wording meant.
This order matters where a document may be incomplete, retrospective or part of a longer chain. It also makes it easier to record whether the witness is describing direct knowledge or repeating something they heard later.
When using the master prompt, review the two tables separately:
- Check the event table for a continuous sequence. There should be no unexplained jump from an early event to a later email or meeting.
- Check the document table for the documents that support, qualify or contradict each event. Include drafts, attachments and adjacent communications where their absence may matter.
- Move material questions from the known-issues section into the relevant event block. A known issue should not remain detached from the point where it arose.
- Keep a short closing section. It should ask about further records, additional people, corrections and follow-up, rather than assuming the supplied bundle is complete.
Watch out
Do not turn an allegation into a question premise
If the pleadings allege an event, ask the witness for their account and cite the allegation. Do not phrase the allegation as if it has already been proved.
Check the output before relying on it
A fluent plan can still be wrong. Check every event heading, factual proposition and document description against the materials. In particular, look for a source reference that points to the wrong page, a date imported from a different document, or a statement that silently combines two accounts.
The output needs correction if it does any of the following:
| What you see | What it may mean | What to do |
|---|---|---|
| A confident statement with no source | The point may have been inferred | Mark it To verify or remove it |
| A document described as proving a fact | The distinction between record and fact has been lost | Recast it as a question for the witness |
| Questions on a document before any account of the event | The sequence may be unnecessarily leading | Add open event questions first |
| A gap described as an established fact | The materials may be incomplete or ambiguous | Identify the missing source or instruction needed |
Check
A usable plan has a trail
You should be able to trace each material question back to a pleading paragraph, document reference, known issue or stated interview objective.
Check the questions aloud. Split compound questions such as “When did you receive the message and why did you not respond?” into separate questions. Mark terminology that the witness may not use. If the plan refers to “the approval process”, identify the document or person that defines it.
Handle sensitive material carefully
Do not paste material you are not authorised to use. Remove unnecessary personal data where a redacted extract will do. Keep the source labels and the relevant wording, because over-redaction can make a question impossible to check. Follow your organisation’s approved handling process and the applicable service settings. Features and limits can vary, so check the xAI documentation overview before deciding what material to submit.
Stop
Do not treat the draft as a witness account
The plan records questions and source-linked issues. It does not establish what the witness will say or what a document means.
When the prompts do not work
If the output is too general, do not ask for “more detail”. Add the missing pleading paragraphs, document IDs, dates and witness role, then run the narrower prompt that matches the gap. If citations are wrong, provide a cleaner evidence index and require page or paragraph references again. If the plan chooses between conflicting accounts, rerun it with the conflicting passages identified and instruct it to preserve both accounts.
Where the material remains incomplete, keep the uncertainty visible. Use Clarify before interview, identify the missing item or instruction, and let the qualified person decide whether the interview can proceed.
