Incident Report vs. Testimony Audit
Compare what the incident or police report recorded at the time against what the same actors said later under oath — every divergence classified and dual-cited.
Worked example · Synthetic fictional details
Sample prompt
Synthetic example: The names, dates, case details, and issues below are fictional CasePrompts sample values, not client data or evidence from a real matter. They demonstrate the prompt format, not the accuracy of any AI model's output.
Preview the complete sample prompt
CONTEXT: You are a litigation support analyst assisting criminal defense counsel in a aggravated battery matter. The attached materials are: (1) the contemporaneous incident or police report(s): offense incident report (1/12/25); supplement (1/15/25), and (2) the later testimony of Officer Reed Calloway, responding officer and report author. The issues that matter are: lighting conditions; statements attributed to the defendant; order of arrivals. INSTRUCTIONS: Compare the report contents against the later testimony, fact by fact, for every actor who appears in both. Classify each divergence as exactly one of: - DIRECT CONTRADICTION — the report and the testimony cannot both be true. - MATERIAL OMISSION — a fact recorded at the time is absent from the testimony where it would naturally appear, or vice versa. - SHIFTED DETAIL — timing, sequence, location, lighting, distance, or identity changed between the report and the stand. Also catalog: statements attributed to the witness in the report that the witness now disputes making, and report contents the testimony never addressed at all. TEMPLATE — format your output exactly as follows: ## Divergence map | # | Topic | Report account (verbatim + cite) | Testimony account (verbatim + cite) | Classification | |---|---|---|---|---| ## Attributed statements now disputed | Statement in report (verbatim + cite) | What the witness says now (verbatim + cite) | |---|---| ## In the report, never asked about Bullet list with cites — contemporaneous facts no examiner has touched. EVIDENCE REQUIREMENTS: For every finding, identify the source document by name and cite page:line for transcripts, timestamps for audio/video, and Bates/page for documents. Every divergence requires two citations — one to the report, one to the testimony — with verbatim language from both. Treat the report as what it is: a record of what was written, not proof of what happened. If a report page or referenced supplement is missing, say so rather than working from assumptions. 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.
Through the Civil / insurance defense lens
Focus on locking the plaintiff and treating providers into the claimed mechanism and limitations, and on divergence between reported symptoms and documented activity or imaging.
Through the Commercial litigation lens
Focus on divergence between witness accounts and the contemporaneous documents, and between a party's course of performance and its litigation position.
Through the Criminal defense lens
Compare every State witness account against every other account and against the physical evidence; small shifts in distance, lighting, timing, and sequence matter and must be captured, not smoothed over.
Through the Employment litigation lens
Focus on shifting explanations for the employment action across documents and testimony, and on divergence between the personnel file and the decision-makers' accounts.
Through the Family law lens
Focus on divergence between sworn financial disclosures and the documentary record, and between claimed parenting involvement and what the communications record actually shows.
Through the Medical malpractice — defense lens
Focus on divergence between the plaintiff's claimed history and the contemporaneous chart, and between the plaintiff's experts' assumptions and what the record actually documents.
Through the Medical malpractice — plaintiff lens
Focus on divergence between the chart and later testimony of the providers who wrote it, and between providers' accounts of the same clinical events.
Through the Personal injury — plaintiff lens
Focus on locking defense witnesses into accounts that conflict with the physical evidence or their own documents, and note wherever a defense account has shifted between tellings.
Through the Probate & estate litigation lens
Focus on divergence between the instrument's recitals and the conduct around it, between a fiduciary's accounting and the underlying records, and between claimed capacity or independence and what the medical and communications record shows.
Through the Prosecution lens
Identify inconsistencies in defense accounts, and with equal rigor flag weaknesses and inconsistencies among the State's own witnesses before the defense finds them.
Through the Workers' compensation — claimant lens
Focus on divergence between the employer/carrier's account of notice and authorization and what the records show, and on shifting reasons for denial across the file.
Through the Workers' compensation — employer/carrier lens
Focus on divergence between the claimant's accident account across tellings — first report, recorded statement, deposition — and between claimed restrictions and documented activity.
AI output is a starting point, not work product. Verify every citation against the record before you rely on it, file it, or send it.
What you'll fill in
- 01Your role
- 02Case typee.g., "trucking liability," "first-party property," "medical malpractice"
- 03Witness / deponent namee.g., "Witness A" or "the treating physician"
- 04Their role in the casee.g., "plaintiff's accident reconstructionist"
- 05Key issue(s) — 1 to 3e.g., "vehicle speed at impact; brake maintenance; visibility"
- 06Prior statements / materials in play(optional)e.g., "recorded statement to adjuster (6/2/24); affidavit (9/1/24)"
Pro tip The 'never asked about' list is tomorrow's examination outline — the contemporaneous record usually knows things the testimony hasn't covered.
Record-first path
Related verification workflow
Related templates
Expert Report vs. Deposition Audit
Audit an expert's deposition against their report: new opinions, abandoned opinions, changed bases, and undisclosed reliance materials — exclusion-motion fuel.
Prior Statement Cross-Examination Builder
Align a witness's deposition against every prior statement, classify each conflict, and get a lock-in → confrontation cross sequence with dual cites.
Witness Prep Consistency Sheet
One witness, every prior statement: a prep sheet of everything they've said, organized by topic and dated, with the soft spots flagged before the other side finds them.