Every document in the case, organized before you open it.
A case workbench for forensic engineers and expert witnesses. Load the folder and get back a timeline, a testimony map and every answer cited to the page. The opinion stays yours.
Eight screens, each replacing something done by hand
Case board
Key dates, open questions and what the system could not resolve, on one screen.
The recap you rebuild in your head every time a matter comes back.
Case files
Upload a folder at a time. What you have reviewed is a record, filterable by party and type.
Sorting intake by who, what and when, by hand.
Case chat
Answers from the case documents only, cited to the page, with a trail of what was searched.
Reading a dozen transcripts for the one line you remember.
Timeline
Every dated event, deduplicated and source-linked, with the gaps flagged for you.
A hundred dates held in your head.
Testimony map
Who is connected to whom and on whose word, with inference drawn differently from fact.
Cross-reading every deposition to find the conflicts.
Hypotheses
Evidence for and against each theory, then challenged. What fails counts for nothing.
Pressure-testing your opinion only once opposing counsel does it for you.
Draft check
A line from your draft comes back supported or not, with the quote and the page.
Finding the unsupported sentence under cross-examination.
Audit log
Versions increment and every change to evidence, people and questions is on the record.
Not knowing what an assistant touched.
Every date the record mentions, and what backs it
Built from the case files alone, page by page, duplicates merged.
- Each event shows the sources behind it, so one mention never looks like six.
- It flags its own weak spots: inferred years the record contradicts, twins across years, mentions that postdate their source.
- Filter by verified, needs review or undated, and by the significance you assign.
Who is connected to whom, and on whose word
Every person and organization the record names, each connected to the case for a stated reason.
- Named in testimony, corresponded with, and possibly the same person are drawn differently, so an inference never reads as a fact.
- Role is carried by shape and letter, not color alone.
- It states its own limit on screen: coverage, not completeness.
The system organizes. You decide.
Nothing enters the case unreviewed
A new document waits for you. Clearing an upload in bulk is your call, not the default.
You override the system
Correct a date, merge two records, delete an event, and it stays corrected. Nothing regenerates over your judgment.
Every change is on the record
If an assistant worked the case, you can see exactly what they touched.
It reads your case and nothing else
No web search, no outside source. Even the background on a person comes from your documents.
Two refusals, up front
It does not write your report.
It hands you a cited chronology and an exhibit list. The writing carries your name, so the writing is yours.
It does not make an opinion defensible.
No software does. What it can do is make sure the file you formed the opinion on was read in full, and that every statement in it traces back to a document and a page.
One platform. Every governed tool.
The workbench is one of the governed tools, on the same cited knowledge and the same role-based governance.
Agentic Apps
Workflow automation: turn a request you repeat into a finished, cited deliverable.
Explore →Run it on a matter you remember well.
The fastest way to judge this is a case whose answer you already know. Load the folder and compare the timeline, the conflicts and the hypotheses against what you would have done by hand.