Expert Report vs. Deposition Audit
Audit an expert's deposition against their report: new opinions, abandoned opinions, changed bases, and undisclosed reliance materials — the record a motion to exclude depends on.
What is an AI expert report vs. deposition audit prompt?
It is a CITE prompt that asks an AI tool to compare statements for possible inconsistencies in case records or expert reports. Audit an expert's deposition against their report: new opinions, abandoned opinions, changed bases, and undisclosed reliance materials — the record a motion to exclude depends on. You fill in five fields; the Evidence block requires a page:line, Bates, page, or timestamp cite for every finding so a person can check each one against the record.
Sample prompt
Synthetic data
Synthetic example: The names, dates, case details, and issues below are fictional CasePrompts sample values, not client data or evidence from a real matter. They demonstrate the prompt format, not the accuracy of any AI model's output.
Preview the complete sample prompt
CONTEXT: You are a litigation support analyst assisting plaintiff's counsel in a products liability matter. The attached materials are the written report and the certified deposition transcript of Dr. Elena Vance, the opposing party's retained expert in biomechanics. The opinions that matter are those bearing on: occupant kinematics; delta-v threshold for the claimed injury. INSTRUCTIONS: First, inventory every opinion stated in the written report: the opinion, its stated basis, and the materials the expert says they relied on. Second, inventory every opinion offered at deposition the same way. Then reconcile the two inventories and flag: 1. NEW AT DEPO — opinions offered in testimony that do not appear in the report. 2. ABANDONED OR LIMITED — report opinions the expert declined to stand behind, qualified, or narrowed at deposition. 3. BASIS SHIFT — same opinion, different stated foundation between report and testimony. 4. UNDISCLOSED RELIANCE — materials the expert admitted reviewing or relying on at deposition that are not listed in the report. 5. CONCESSIONS — methodology limits, error rates, alternative explanations, or qualifications conceded on cross. TEMPLATE — format your output exactly as follows: ## Opinion reconciliation | # | Opinion | In report? (cite) | At depo? (cite) | Flag (new / abandoned / basis-shift / consistent) | Verbatim key language | |---|---|---|---|---|---| ## Undisclosed reliance materials | Material | Where admitted (cite) | Listed in report? | |---|---|---| ## Concessions on methodology Bullet list, each with verbatim quote and cite. ## Exclusion-motion leads For each NEW AT DEPO and BASIS SHIFT item, one sentence on the disclosure gap, with both cites. Label this section "for attorney evaluation — not a legal conclusion." EVIDENCE REQUIREMENTS: For every finding, identify the source document by name and cite page:line for transcripts, timestamps for audio/video, and Bates/page for documents. Quote the expert's verbatim language for every flagged item; paraphrase is not acceptable where the flag depends on wording. If the report or transcript does not address a category, state "not found in the record" for that category. Do not opine on admissibility or legal standards — identify the factual gaps only. Unless a section above specifies its own marker, write "not found in the record" wherever the provided record does not support a requested finding. Do not infer or fill gaps from outside knowledge. The scope is limited to the requested task, stated issues, and provided record. Do not introduce outside subjects or sources. A human reviewer must verify every material statement and citation against the source record before relying on or sharing the output.
Through the Civil / insurance defense lens
Focus on locking the plaintiff and treating providers into the claimed mechanism and limitations, and on divergence between reported symptoms and documented activity or imaging.
Through the Commercial litigation lens
Focus on divergence between witness accounts and the contemporaneous documents, and between a party's course of performance and its litigation position.
Through the Criminal defense lens
Compare every State witness account against every other account and against the physical evidence; small shifts in distance, lighting, timing, and sequence matter and must be captured, not smoothed over.
Through the Employment litigation lens
Focus on shifting explanations for the employment action across documents and testimony, and on divergence between the personnel file and the decision-makers' accounts.
Through the Family law lens
Focus on divergence between sworn financial disclosures and the documentary record, and between claimed parenting involvement and what the communications record actually shows.
Through the Medical malpractice — defense lens
Focus on divergence between the plaintiff's claimed history and the contemporaneous chart, and between the plaintiff's experts' assumptions and what the record actually documents.
Through the Medical malpractice — plaintiff lens
Focus on divergence between the chart and later testimony of the providers who wrote it, and between providers' accounts of the same clinical events.
Through the Personal injury — plaintiff lens
Focus on locking defense witnesses into accounts that conflict with the physical evidence or their own documents, and note wherever a defense account has shifted between tellings.
Through the Probate & estate litigation lens
Focus on divergence between the instrument's recitals and the conduct around it, between a fiduciary's accounting and the underlying records, and between claimed capacity or independence and what the medical and communications record shows.
Through the Prosecution lens
Identify inconsistencies in defense accounts, and with equal rigor flag weaknesses and inconsistencies among the State's own witnesses before the defense finds them.
Through the Workers' compensation — claimant lens
Focus on divergence between the employer/carrier's account of notice and authorization and what the records show, and on shifting reasons for denial across the file.
Through the Workers' compensation — employer/carrier lens
Focus on divergence between the claimant's accident account across tellings — first report, recorded statement, deposition — and between claimed restrictions and documented activity.
AI output is a starting point, not work product. Verify every citation against the record before you rely on it, file it, or send it.
What you'll fill in
- 01Your role
- 02Case typee.g., "trucking liability," "first-party property," "medical malpractice"
- 03Witness / deponent namee.g., "Witness A" or "the treating physician"
- 04Key issue(s) — 1 to 3e.g., "vehicle speed at impact; brake maintenance; visibility"
- 05Expert's fielde.g., "biomechanics"
Verification checklist
- Mixed / full case record: open each cited page:line, Bates, page, or timestamp location and confirm it supports the finding. The prompt asks: “For every finding, identify the source document by name and cite page:line for transcripts, timestamps for audio/video, and Bates/page for documents.”
- Expert report: open each cited Bates or page location and confirm it supports the finding. The prompt asks: “For every finding, cite the exhibit or Bates number and page; if neither exists, cite the PDF page number.”
- Compare every verbatim quotation word for word with the source.
- Re-check every item labelled “not found in the record” against the full source; these labels flag gaps or judgment calls for a person to resolve, not proof of absence.
- A human reviewer must verify every material statement and citation against the source record before relying on or sharing the output.
Pro tip Pairs with your Rule 26 disclosure deadlines — run it the day the rough draft arrives, not the week the Daubert motion is due.
Related verification workflow
Related templates
Incident Report vs. Testimony Audit
Compare what the incident or police report recorded at the time against what the same actors said later under oath — every divergence classified and dual-cited.
Prior Statement Cross-Examination Builder
Align a witness's deposition against every prior statement, classify each conflict, and get a lock-in → confrontation cross sequence with dual cites.
Witness Prep Consistency Sheet
One witness, every prior statement: a prep sheet of everything they've said, organized by topic and dated, with the soft spots flagged before the other side finds them.