Every report you sign gets read by someone trying to break it.
Every hypothesis your file supports, for you and against you, each one traced to the page it came from. More of the record considered, and the basis stated for what you ruled out.
Three places the work actually breaks
Ten days to turn the report, and it still has to hold up
A ten-day turnaround is the industry standard, rush work bills at a premium, and the deliverable still has to survive the other side. Speed that quietly costs you the basis is not speed.
“Demand spikes after every storm season and I cannot hire a senior expert overnight.”
The gap in the file is the opening
Engineers draw roughly a quarter of all challenges to expert testimony, and the bar keeps rising. What gets taken apart is rarely the analysis. It is the unstated basis, the missing step, the citation nobody can trace.
“If it will not survive cross-examination, it is worse than useless, it loses the case.”
A week of re-reading before you can do any new work
Cases run two and three years. You put one down, pick it back up, and spend days rebuilding what is already in the file. That week goes on recovering knowledge you produced yourself.
“I do not want to reinvent the wheel every time I sit down to it. I need a good bookkeeping memory system.”
It is the scientific method, and it is not ours
Forensic engineering already runs on hypothesis elimination, and the standards already say to consider the ones against you. The software follows that sequence rather than replacing it.
Every hypothesis, not the convenient ones
The file raises what it raises, in your favour and against you. An independent opinion has to consider all of them, so the set starts complete rather than starting with yours.
Eliminate on the record
For each one, what in the file proves or disproves it, cited to the page. What survives is what the record actually supports, and what you ruled out has its basis stated.
You decide, and it stays unbiased
It does not weight the hypotheses, pick a survivor, or lean toward whoever is paying. The standard is more likely than not, and reaching it is your judgment. The licence is yours, and so is the opinion.
Built to survive Daubert and Frye
Not because software can promise an outcome in court, but because the three things a challenge goes after are properties you can check before you file.
The method is repeatable
Every answer names the document and the passage it came from. An opposing expert can pull the same source and get the same result, which is the whole of what repeatable means here.
The basis is disclosed
The sources in scope are the ones you approved, and nothing outside them reaches an answer. What the work stands on is on the face of it rather than somewhere in a model.
The file is still there in three years
A case lives in a knowledgeBase, not in a chat session. A matter that goes quiet for two years comes back with its documents, its citations and the answers you already relied on intact.
The week of re-reading, run once
The Deposition Readiness Pack, on a full case file. Six steps, one of which is you.
Input Marsh v. Ardent Holdings, full case file
- Two prior findings on the same initiation site
- One inconsistency flagged for your review
- Five questions the file does not answer
Testimony is its own problem, and it outlives the case. Everything you have already said on an issue, across years of reports and transcripts, is expert witness preparation.
The apps we build for forensic firms
Deposition Readiness Pack
The week of re-reading, run once.
Prior-Findings Search
Every position your firm has taken, cited to its page.
Exhibit Matcher
Photos matched to the notes that describe them.
Code-on-Date-of-Loss Check
The edition in force, not the one on the shelf.
Before you send us a document
Opposing counsel will ask what tool we used.
Good. That is the case for a governed system rather than against it. You can describe an approved source set, a citation on every answer, and a logged record of what was asked. You cannot describe a chat window.
Does it write the report?
No. It finds and cites what is already in your file, prior opinions, the governing code edition, the note that describes an exhibit, and assembles that material for review. The analysis and the opinion stay yours. What it produces is checkable, because every line names the document and page it came from.
What stops it from inventing a citation?
It answers only from the documents you loaded, never the open web, and every answer arrives naming the source it came from, so you can go to it and verify it. When the answer is not in your sources, it tells you, it doesn’t invent one.
Does it decide which hypothesis is right, or lean toward the side paying us?
Neither. It lays out every hypothesis your file supports, the ones in your favour and the ones against you, and for each one it shows what in the record proves or disproves it, cited to the page. It does not weight them and it does not pick a survivor. You decide which stand, and what you ruled out keeps its basis on the record.
We pick cases back up after a year. Does it remember where we left off?
That is what a case workspace is for. Everything you loaded and asked stays with the case rather than scattering across sessions, so coming back to it starts with a recap of where the case stood instead of a week of re-reading. Settled findings stay settled, and each case stays sealed off from the others.
Where does my archive live, and could it end up training a competitor’s tool?
Your documents stay in your own tenant and we do not train on them. Your report archive stays yours, it is your edge, and nothing about how this works requires giving that up.
Two questions this comes up against most
The cause-and-origin report, and what gets it taken apart
What the format has to contain, why reports get challenged on traceability rather than on the engineering, and why saying what you ruled out makes an opinion harder to attack.
Read it →Finding the prior case file, without asking the one person who knows
Why folder structures and full-text search both fail on a thirty-year archive, and why retroactive tagging projects rarely finish.
Read it →See cited answers running on your own case files.
Thirty minutes on a slice of your own records. See the citations before anyone signs anything.