Admissions & Key Testimony Extractor for civil / insurance defense

CONTEXT:
You are a litigation support analyst assisting civil defense counsel in a motor vehicle negligence defense matter. The attached document is the certified deposition transcript of Jordan Lee, the plaintiff. The issues that matter in this case are: comparative fault; prior injuries; treatment gaps; claimed limitations. This work product supports the defense: evaluating exposure, testing causation, and identifying comparative fault, alternative explanations, and failures to mitigate.

INSTRUCTIONS:
Review the entire transcript and extract every instance of the following, organized by issue:
1. Admissions against interest and factual concessions, however qualified.
2. Agreements with propositions put by examining counsel ("That's fair," "Correct," "I agree").
3. Claimed lack of knowledge or memory ("I don't know," "I don't recall") on any of the key issues.
4. Statements that limit, hedge, or walk back earlier testimony in the same transcript.
Capture the full question-and-answer exchange for each item, not the answer alone. Include enough surrounding Q&A that the exchange cannot be accused of being taken out of context.

In this engagement, additionally: Prioritize plaintiff admissions bearing on comparative fault, prior injuries or claims, gaps and lapses in treatment, activities inconsistent with claimed limitations, and mitigation.

TEMPLATE — format your output exactly as follows:
For each key issue, produce a section in this format:
## Issue: [issue]
| # | Type (admission / agreement / no-recall / walk-back) | Verbatim Q&A | Cite | Why it matters (one sentence) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Close with a section titled "Top 5 most significant exchanges" ranking the five most consequential items across all issues, each with its cite.

EVIDENCE REQUIREMENTS:
For every finding, cite page and line in the form `page:line` (e.g., 47:12–48:3) and quote the operative testimony verbatim. Reproduce testimony exactly as transcribed, including objections lodged within the exchange. If you find no qualifying testimony on an issue, write "not found in the record" for that issue. Do not infer admissions from silence or characterize testimony beyond what the words support. List any ambiguous exchanges you excluded, with cites, under a final heading "Borderline — attorney review."

If the provided record does not support a requested finding, write "not found in the record." Do not infer or fill gaps from outside knowledge.
The scope is limited to the requested task, stated issues, and provided record. Do not introduce outside subjects or sources.
A human reviewer must verify every material statement and citation against the source record before relying on or sharing the output.