--- name: map-evidence-inconsistencies-l0cka title: Map Evidence Inconsistencies description: Map where supplied legal matter documents and accounts agree, diverge or are silent on each material fact, as a .docx file — a fact-by-source matrix with pinpoints, a corroboration register and a divergence register that quotes each competing passage, classifies the divergence (date, amount, sequence, participant, wording, omission) and lists the question a reviewer must resolve — without deciding which account is right. Use after a chronology exists, for witness preparation, cross-examination planning, investigations and regulatory responses. Do not use to assess credibility, reliability, weight or admissibility, to decide that a witness is lying or mistaken, or to draft findings. author: l0cka author_url: https://github.com/l0cka/legal-skills/tree/main/plugins/legal-evidence-workflows/skills/map-evidence-inconsistencies license: MIT version: 0.1.0 execution_mode: open jurisdiction: general practice: litigation language: en --- # Map Evidence Inconsistencies Show, fact by fact, what each source says and where the sources part company, so a practitioner can decide what to test. The map records agreement, divergence and silence with pinpoints; it never ranks the accounts. Source documents stay unchanged and the map is delivered as a Word `.docx` file. ## Workflow 1. Define the mapping set and the material facts. - Record the matter label, the supplied documents (or the chronology and document index they come from) and the practitioner's list of material facts or issues to map. If no list is supplied, derive candidate facts from the chronology's conflict register and events, label them `candidate` and ask the practitioner to confirm before treating the map as complete. - State that the map covers only the supplied and readable sources. 2. Build the fact-by-source review table. - Use the runtime's native review-table or structured document-review feature when available. Do not replace an available native table with prose. - Treat each material fact as a row and each source as a column, or each fact-source pair as a row when the runtime table is one-dimensional. For every pair record: what the source says (quoted or closely paraphrased); pinpoint; the source's date and character (`contemporaneous record`, `reported recollection`, `allegation`, `inference` or `unclear`); and whether it is `consistent`, `divergent` or `silent` relative to the other sources on that fact. - If no native table exists, use the same schema as an internal structured extraction and state in the final document that cell verification and native source navigation were unavailable. 3. Classify each divergence. - Quote each competing passage with its pinpoint. Classify the divergence as `date or time`, `amount or quantity`, `sequence`, `participant`, `wording or characterisation`, `omission` or `internal` (one source contradicting itself). A divergence may carry more than one class. - Record the question a reviewer would need answered — a missing document, a witness clarification, a metadata check — rather than an answer. - Record silence as silence. A source that does not mention a fact is not evidence against it and is not marked divergent. 4. Record corroboration without weighing it. - Where two or more sources agree, list them with pinpoints and note whether they are independent on their face or appear to derive from the same origin (a forwarded email, a copied statement). Note derivation as a provenance fact, never as a view on reliability. 5. Create the Word map. - Create a new `.docx` file. If the user supplies an approved template, use a working copy and preserve its styles; otherwise use a clean, restrained professional layout suitable for legal review. - Include: title and document status; mapping scope, fact list status and supplied-source limitation; the fact-by-source matrix; the divergence register; the corroboration register; silences and gaps; review record; and limitations. - Use a landscape section for the matrix. Repeat table headings across pages, allow rows to expand, keep quotations and pinpoints readable and do not shrink text to force the table onto fewer pages. - Mark the document `DRAFT - HUMAN REVIEW REQUIRED`. Use reviewer names, firm branding or matter identifiers only when supplied or approved. 6. Check traceability and gaps. - Confirm that every matrix cell other than `silent` points to a source and usable pinpoint or an express pinpoint limitation, and that every divergence register entry quotes at least two passages. - List unreadable files, facts with a single source, facts the practitioner listed that no source addresses, and divergences that a missing document might resolve. - Confirm that the output is a valid `.docx`, opens successfully and contains the expected sections and rows. Use the runtime's document preview when available and inspect every page. If visual inspection is unavailable, state that limitation in the document and result status. ## Result contract Lead with `READY FOR HUMAN REVIEW`, `READY WITH QUALIFICATIONS`, `NOT READY` or `OUTSIDE SCOPE`. ```text Mapping scope: Fact-by-source table: DOCX inconsistency map: Matrix: Divergence register: Corroboration register: Silences and gaps: Review record: Limitations: ``` Use `READY FOR HUMAN REVIEW` when the matrix is traceable, the fact list was supplied or confirmed and a valid `.docx` passed the available document checks. Use `READY WITH QUALIFICATIONS` when the `.docx` remains useful despite a candidate fact list, unreadable material, pinpoint limitations or unavailable visual inspection. Use `NOT READY` when source identity or traceability is too weak to support a reviewable map, or the runtime cannot create a valid `.docx`. Use `OUTSIDE SCOPE` when the request requires a view on credibility, reliability, weight, admissibility, legal effect or merits, or a finding about what happened. ## Fail closed Never decide which account is correct, describe a witness as credible, unreliable, lying or mistaken, or rank sources. Never invent a statement, quotation, pinpoint, date or participant, and never paraphrase a passage in a way that removes or adds a divergence. Never convert silence into evidence that an event did not occur, and never merge divergent accounts into one agreed fact. Do not claim the map is complete beyond the supplied and readable sources or the confirmed fact list. Do not alter, send, file, publish or disclose source documents or the map without separate human authorisation. Do not substitute Markdown, PDF, a spreadsheet or prose-only output for the required `.docx` map.