| name | chronology-builder-andrew-bird |
| description | Builds a litigation chronology from the disclosure bundle itself — every entry attributed to its source document, behind a CPR 31.22 implied-undertaking check, because documents disclosed in English proceedings may only be used for those proceedings. Adds a privilege screen and case-theory significance tagging, so the output is court-facing work product, not a loose timeline. Use when the user asks to build a chronology or timeline from a disclosure bundle, a matter file, or witness statements, or says 'build the chron', 'what happened when', or needs a Statement of Facts ready timeline. |
| argument-hint | [slug] [--format=working|sof|witness-[name]] |
| metadata | {"author":"Andrew Bird","license":"mit","version":"2026-06-12"} |
/chronology
- Run the CPR 31.22 implied-undertaking check before extracting from disclosed documents.
- Identify sources: user-provided paths, matter folder, declared sources.
- Extract dated events, de-duplicate against sources, tag significance per case theory.
- Output a working chronology by default; Statement-of-Facts or witness-specific variants on request.
Chronology — UK civil litigation
CPR 31.22 implied-undertaking check
The host workspace enforces the hard gate (matter-slug match against the proceedings reference, privilege posture). If this skill is running, that gate has already passed — this check does not replace it. The skill still performs its own check below and refuses or flags if misuse is indicated; it is not the enforcement.
Before building from any document obtained through standard or extended disclosure in English / Welsh proceedings, confirm the use is permitted:
CPR 31.22(1): A party to whom a document has been disclosed may use the document only for the purpose of the proceedings in which it is disclosed, except where:
(a) the document has been read to or by the court, or referred to, at a hearing held in public;
(b) the court gives permission; or
(c) the party who disclosed the document and the person to whom the document belongs agree.
Misuse of disclosed documents (using them for a different matter, a different claim, a commercial purpose, or external publication) is a contempt of court.
Confirm before extracting from any source that may have come through disclosure:
- Whether the documents are from disclosure in current proceedings (infer from source path or matter context; surface for confirmation if not evident).
- Whether the chronology is being built for use in those same proceedings (default assumption: yes — same matter slug, same proceedings).
If the answer indicates "different proceedings" or "external use", refuse to build until permission, the parties' agreement, or open-court reference is established — the implied undertaking would otherwise be breached. Flag prominently in the output header: CPR 31.22 — use restricted to current proceedings unless permitted, agreed, or read in open court.
Equivalent overlay in disclosure pilot / PD 57AD jurisdictions (Business and Property Courts): the implied undertaking applies; PD 57AD does not displace it.
Privilege screen
Documents may be subject to legal professional privilege (advice and litigation privilege), common-interest privilege, joint-defence privilege, without-prejudice protection. Extracting privileged content into a chronology that is later shared can risk waiver.
Determine the privilege posture before extracting. Infer from source type (cleared production folder → A; mixed mailbox / dataroom → B; ad-hoc bundle with no review history → B by default; explicit instruction to pause → C). Surface the inferred posture in the output header so counsel can override.
- A. All sources screened and cleared by counsel. Extract without flags.
- B. Mixed or unscreened (default for ambiguous sources). Extract and tag each entry
priv: ok / priv: flag / priv: review. SoF variant filters flagged entries by default.
- C. Pause and screen first (use when counsel has explicitly instructed).
Inputs
- Matter slug, case theory (one sentence — the spine of the case), pivot fact (the single event the case turns on), key facts.
- Sources: disclosure bundle path / cloud folder, supplemental disclosure, witness statements, expert reports, public registers (Companies House, Land Registry), correspondence (open and WP — handle differently).
- Side (claimant / defendant) — drives significance tagging.
Workflow
Step 1 — CPR 31.22 implied-undertaking check (above)
Step 2 — Privilege posture choice (above)
Step 3 — Source identification
User-provided paths first, then matter folder, then declared sources. Name any source the skill cannot read in the Gaps section — don't silently skip.
Step 4 — Extraction
For each readable source, identify dated events. One event per document usually. Format: [date] [actor] [verb] [object/recipient] [content summary].
Step 5 — De-duplication
The same event surfaces in multiple documents (calendar entry, summary email, meeting note). Merge into one entry with multi-source attribution.
Step 6 — Significance tagging (per side)
- Claimant (offensive): 🔴 events establishing elements of the cause (duty, breach, causation, loss, notice), starting limitation in claimant's favour. 🟡 supportive but impeachable. ⚪ background.
- Defendant (defensive): 🔴 events breaking causation, establishing limitation, supporting affirmative defence (waiver, estoppel, release, contributory negligence). 🟡 undermining claimant narrative. ⚪ background.
Discipline: 🔴 should be reserved for events that move a factfinder. If everything is 🔴, nothing is.
Step 7 — Source attribution per entry
Every entry cites its source(s): Bates / disclosure list reference, file path, or witness statement paragraph. Entries derived from web search, model knowledge, or user statement in-session must be tagged [web search — verify], [model knowledge — verify], [user provided].
Step 8 — Output
Working chronology by default. Variants:
- Statement of Facts (SoF): filtered to 🔴 and select 🟡, prose narrative, with disclosure references. Privilege-flagged entries excluded by default.
- Witness-specific: filtered to events where the named witness is sender, recipient, attendee, or subject.
Output
Produce the chronology with the sections below. Render this as the finished chronology — do not echo this template back, do not leave [placeholder] markers or emoji-count scaffolding in the output, and do not invent events to fill rows. Attribute every entry to its source document; if a section has nothing in it, say so.
This is a draft for solicitor review, not legal advice. The chronology and its significance tags are a first pass; counsel decides what goes into a pleading or before the court.
The sections:
- A reviewer-note line: work product, prepared in contemplation of litigation, subject to litigation privilege.
- A CPR 31.22 notice naming the proceedings the sources were disclosed in.
- A header: matter slug, build date, case theory, pivot fact, side framing, privilege posture, source count, and entry count by tag.
- The timeline table — one row per de-duplicated event, with date, event, significance tag, privilege flag, and sources.
- Key events (🔴) — the events that move a factfinder, each with what happened, the tie to the case theory, and sources.
- Gaps — date ranges with no events, expected-but-missing events, unreadable sources.
Worked shape for the sections (do not copy the placeholder text — fill from real sources):
[Reviewer note: work product, prepared in contemplation of litigation, subject to litigation privilege.]
CPR 31.22 notice. Sources include documents disclosed in [proceedings]. Use restricted to those proceedings per CPR 31.22 unless permitted, agreed, or already read in open court.
Chronology — [Matter name]
- Matter: [slug]
- Built: [YYYY-MM-DD]
- Case theory: [one sentence]
- Pivot fact: [one sentence]
- Side framing: [claimant / defendant]
- Privilege posture: A-cleared / B-mixed / C-aborted
- Sources: [N] documents across [bundle / supplemental / witness / expert]
- Entries: [N] ([N] 🔴 / [N] 🟡 / [N] ⚪)
Timeline
| Date | Event | Tag | 🔒 | Sources |
|---|
| [YYYY-MM-DD] | [actor + verb + object + content] | 🔴/🟡/⚪ | / 🔒-flag / 🔒-review | [D1/123, WS-Smith para 14] |
Key events (🔴)
[date] — [event title]
- What: [...]
- Theory tie: [why this matters to the case theory]
- Sources: [...]
Gaps
- Date ranges with no events: [...]
- Expected but missing: [...]
- Unreadable sources: [...]
Marker discipline
[VERIFY — factual assertion not yet checked against the source doc][UNCERTAIN — legal characterisation][CITE NEEDED — disclosure reference][SME VERIFY — privilege status / borderline significance]
Version
- v[N] built on [date] from [source summary]
- v[N-1] superseded
Incremental builds
If a prior chronology.md exists: read, build new from current sources, diff (new / modified / removed), bump version. Preserve provenance and tags.
What this skill does not do
- Resolve contradictions between sources. Both go in with flags.
- Fill gaps from web search or model knowledge silently. The user is asked first.
- Decide privilege status. The posture is selected; per-entry flags are first-pass; counsel decides distribution.
- Cover Scottish / NI proceedings.
