Everything you have already said, and where you said it.
Your reports, depositions, and papers, searched as one record, so you see where two of them read differently before opposing counsel does.
Three places this work actually breaks
Not the analysis. The part where you have to account for two decades of your own prior work under time pressure.
You have testified on this before. Where, and how?
Twenty years of reports and transcripts, across cases that each ran years. Somewhere in there is what you said about this exact failure mode. Finding it means remembering which case it was.
“Thirty years of cause-and-origin reports sit in folders only the senior partner can navigate.”
The divergence you did not know was there
Two statements can both be right and still read like a contradiction side by side. The problem is not that you changed your mind. It is that opposing counsel finds the pair before you do.
“If it will not survive cross-examination, it is worse than useless, it loses the case.”
Your basis has to be traceable, not just correct
Engineers draw roughly a quarter of challenges to expert testimony, and amended Rule 702 raised what has to be shown. An unstated basis or an untraceable citation is the opening, even when the opinion was sound.
“The code in force on the date of loss is not the code sitting on my shelf today.”
Three steps, and the third is the one you cannot do by hand
Consistency across a twenty-year archive is not a reading problem. It is a recall problem.
Load what you have already said
Prior reports, deposition and trial transcripts, published papers, conference material. You approve every source; nothing outside them is read.
Ask the question opposing counsel will ask
“Have I taken a position on weld porosity as an initiating defect?” It comes back with the statements and the pages they sit on.
See where the wording diverges
Run the consistency check across the whole set. It shows you pairs that read differently, with both sources attached, so you can decide which are real differences and which are scope.
Run it before the deposition, not during it
It collects every position you have taken on an issue, shows you the pairs that read differently, and stops for you to decide which are real.
Input Weld porosity as an initiating defect
- One is a scope difference, not a contradiction
- One needs restating before you are asked about it
The apps we build for testifying experts
Prior Testimony Consistency Check
The pairs that read differently, found by you first.
Deposition Prep Pack
Everything you have said on the issue, page-cited.
Opinion Locator
Where you said it: report, transcript, or paper.
One refusal, up front
Before you send us a transcript
Does it write or shape my testimony?
No, and it is built not to. It retrieves what you have already said and shows you where you said it. It does not draft, does not suggest a conclusion, and does not have an opinion about your opinion. Everything it produces is material for your review, with the source attached so you can check it.
Will this make my testimony harder to challenge?
We will not make that claim, how a court treats your methodology is not something software decides. What we will say is narrower and checkable: you can find every prior statement you have made on an issue, see the source page for each one, and see where two of them read differently, before someone else does it for you.
What stops it from inventing a prior statement?
It answers only from the documents you loaded, never the open web, and every statement it returns arrives with its document and page so you can open it. When your sources do not contain an answer, it tells you, instead of producing something plausible. You are never asked to trust something you cannot trace.
What does this actually change on the day?
How you walk in. There is a difference between going into a deposition knowing what your record establishes and what it does not, and going in hoping nothing surfaces that you have not seen. Having checked the whole set yourself, found the pairs that read differently, and settled which are real scope differences, you answer from a position you have already tested. Confidence is not a feature we can ship, but knowing your own record is, and the rest follows from it.
Could my transcripts and reports end up training a tool my opposing experts use?
No. Your documents stay in your own tenant and we do not train on them. Your archive is your edge, and nothing about how this works requires giving that up.
Test it against a deposition you remember well
Send one transcript and ask it something you already know you said. Twenty minutes, and you will see whether it finds the passage and names the page.