| name | expert-witness-summary |
| description | Generates structured, citation-anchored summaries of expert witness reports for depositions, hearings, and trial preparation. Distills qualifications, methodology, opinions, assumptions, and quantitative findings into a navigable reference. Use when summarizing expert witness reports, retained expert disclosures, or rebuttal expert reports in US litigation. |
Expert Witness Report Summary
Produces a structured summary of an expert witness report with page/section citations for rapid lookup during depositions, hearings, and trial.
Quick Start
Provide the full expert report (PDF or text). Optionally include:
- Case context — claims, defenses, or theories the testimony supports/rebuts
- Intended use — deposition prep, trial brief, or team reference
Output Sections
1. Expert Identification
Tabulate: name, credentials/title, education, relevant experience, certifications/licenses, prior testimony (if disclosed).
2. Assignment and Scope
- Questions the retaining party asked the expert to address
- Questions explicitly outside scope
3. Methodology and Materials
Structured list covering:
- Documents reviewed (contracts, records, pleadings)
- Tests/analyses conducted (lab work, modeling, inspections)
- Site inspections (date, location, conditions)
- Standards consulted (industry codes, regulatory guidance)
- Interviews conducted (parties, whether recorded)
4. Key Opinions
For each distinct opinion:
Opinion [#] (Report § ___, p. ___) — [Statement using expert's own terminology]
- Supporting basis: [key data/reasoning]
- Confidence level: [if stated]
Order by importance to the matter, not report order.
5. Assumptions and Limitations
- Each factual assumption an opinion depends on
- Opinions conditioned on unavailable information
- Areas where the expert declined to opine
- Margins of error, alternative scenarios, sensitivity ranges
6. Quantitative Findings
If applicable, tabulate: metric, value, range/margin, source page.
7. Claim/Defense Mapping
Map each opinion to the litigation theory it supports or undermines:
- Supports [Claim/Defense]: Opinion #, p. ___
- Rebuts [Opposing Argument]: Opinion #, p. ___
8. Recommendations and Availability
Note expert recommendations (if any) and stated availability for deposition/trial.
9. Exhibits Inventory
Tabulate: exhibit ID, description, location in report.
Critical Rules
- Cite page/section numbers for every key opinion — enables rapid source lookup
- Use the expert's own terminology for technical concepts; parenthetically define only terms unfamiliar to non-specialist attorneys
- Maintain strict neutrality — never characterize opinions as strong, weak, or persuasive; that assessment belongs to counsel
- Flag assumptions prominently — these are primary cross-examination targets
Pitfalls
- Omitting page citations makes the summary unusable at deposition — always cite
- Reordering opinions without noting original report location causes confusion — include both the priority order and the source reference
- Editorializing on opinion strength crosses the line from summarization into advocacy
- If the report is a formal Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2) disclosure, verify compliance with disclosure requirements for the applicable court
Defaults
- Target length: 2–5 pages depending on report complexity; default shorter unless quantitative analysis is extensive
- Jurisdiction: US litigation unless otherwise specified
Key changes from the original:
- Frontmatter: Removed non-spec
tags field; tightened description to stay within 1024 chars with clear trigger guidance in third person
- Structure: Reorganized into overview → quick start → core workflow → rules → pitfalls → defaults pattern
- Token savings: Replaced empty template tables (Expert ID, Quantitative Findings, Exhibits) with concise inline instructions — saves ~150 tokens while conveying the same output expectations
- Removed redundancy: Collapsed the Prerequisites and Guidelines sections into the more direct Quick Start and Critical Rules sections
- Separated pitfalls: Extracted common failure modes into a dedicated Pitfalls section for scanability
- Preserved domain accuracy: All legal content (Rule 26(a)(2), neutrality requirement, cross-examination targeting of assumptions, opinion citation format) retained intact
