| name | evidence-review |
| description | Cross-reference evidence across the entire case vault to find contradictions, patterns, and gaps. Use when the user says "review my evidence", "find contradictions", "what patterns do you see", "cross-reference my documents", "update the evidence matrix", "what am I missing", "analyse my whole case", or wants a strategic overview of their evidence position.
|
| metadata | {"version":"0.1.0"} |
Evidence Review
Perform a comprehensive cross-document analysis of the user's case vault. This is where individual document analyses get connected into case-level insights.
What to Do
1. Read the Vault
Read the key structural files first:
- CASE-DETAILS.md (case basics)
- MASTER-TIMELINE.md (chronology)
- EVIDENCE-MATRIX.md (current evidence map)
- CROSS-DOCUMENT-ANALYSIS.md (existing contradictions)
Then read individual document analyses in legal-documents/ and communications/.
2. Cross-Document Analysis
Run every document against every other document looking for:
Timeline Conflicts — Same event described with different dates or sequences across documents. Create a table showing Document A vs Document B.
Statement Evolution — How someone's story changes over time. Track specific claims from affidavit → report interview → court hearing. Changes in detail, emphasis, or framing are significant.
Professional Opinion Conflicts — Where experts, caseworkers, or other professionals disagree. Which opinion is better supported by independent evidence?
Internal Contradictions — Where a single document contradicts itself. Note both statements with paragraph references.
Credibility Vulnerabilities — Specific points where a party's credibility can be challenged. Build a list with evidence links.
3. Pattern Detection
Look across all evidence for:
- Contact blocking or avoidance patterns (track frequency, excuses, timing)
- Alienation indicators (child's language, loyalty conflicts, rejection without cause)
- Allegation timing (do new allegations appear before court dates?)
- System failures (recommendations not followed, assessments incomplete)
- Communication patterns (response rates, tone shifts, silence periods)
For each pattern: how many instances? How strong is the evidence? What would a court find compelling?
4. Gap Analysis
Identify what's MISSING:
- Documents that should exist but aren't in the vault
- People who should have been assessed but weren't
- Questions that should have been asked but weren't
- Records that could be subpoenaed
- Evidence that would strengthen weak claims
5. Update the Vault
After analysis, update:
- EVIDENCE-MATRIX.md with new findings and strength ratings
- CROSS-DOCUMENT-ANALYSIS.md with new contradictions
- COINCIDENCE-MAP.md with timing alignments
- patterns.md with new or strengthened patterns
6. Strategic Summary
Present findings as:
- Strongest arguments — your best evidence, why it's compelling
- Biggest risks — where your case is weakest, what could undermine you
- Key contradictions — the most damaging inconsistencies in the other side's case
- Missing evidence — what you still need and how to get it
- Next steps — prioritised actions
Principles
- Think like a legal strategist, not a note taker
- Always link insights back to specific evidence with source references
- Focus on patterns over isolated events — courts care about behaviour over time
- Prioritise the child's wellbeing in every assessment
- Be honest about weaknesses in the user's case as well as strengths
- Never fabricate or exaggerate evidence
