Expert Testimony Summarization

Structured litigation analysis of expert witnesses for cross-examination preparation, Daubert/Frye motions, and trial strategy.

Required Inputs

Expert report(s) — initial, rebuttal, supplemental
Deposition transcript(s) — page/line numbers intact
Curriculum vitae
Supporting materials (if available) — cited literature, data sets, testing protocols, prior testimony disclosures

Workflow

1. Expert Profile

Capture: name/title, retaining party, compensation disclosed, prior testimony history (case count + plaintiff-vs-defense ratio), areas of claimed expertise.

2. Opinions Inventory

For each opinion:

Ultimate conclusion — verbatim or close paraphrase with source cite (report section or depo page:line)
Supporting sub-opinions — numbered
Source citation — report section or depo page:line

3. Methodology Analysis

For each methodology, assess:

Technique/framework used
Peer-reviewed (Yes / No / Partial)
Industry standard (Yes / No)
Novel or proprietary
Independently replicable
Error rate disclosed

4. Factual Basis

Documents and data sources relied upon
Independent verification performed vs. assumed facts
Key assumptions — flag unverified or contested assumptions

5. Strengths & Weaknesses

Strengths — credentials match opinion subject, peer-reviewed methodology, internal consistency, independent testing/analysis.

Weaknesses checklist:

[ ] Opinions exceed CV-supported expertise
[ ] Unsupported or contested assumptions
[ ] Methodology not peer-reviewed or generally accepted
[ ] Reliance on inadmissible or unreliable data
[ ] Inconsistencies with published literature
[ ] Inconsistencies with expert's prior testimony or publications
[ ] Advocacy bias indicators (extreme retention ratio, hired-gun history)
[ ] Undisclosed error rates, limitations, or contrary data

6. Admissibility Assessment

Evaluate under the controlling standard. Daubert applies in federal courts and most states. Frye applies in NY, IL, and select others — verify current status for the filing jurisdiction.

Daubert factors:

Testable/falsifiable methodology
Peer review and publication
Known or potential error rate
General acceptance in field
Methodology reliably applied to case facts

Flag any grounds for a motion to exclude or limit.

7. Cross-Examination Strategy

Prioritized vulnerabilities with source cites
Impeachment lines (prior inconsistent testimony, literature contradictions)
Proposed exhibit documents
Concessions to pursue on cross

8. Strategic Recommendations

Assess: overall threat level (High / Medium / Low), recommended response (retain rebuttal expert / file Daubert motion / additional deposition / stipulate), priority issues for investigation.

Checks

Cite every assertion to a specific source (report section or depo page:line)
Distinguish expert statements from your characterization
Separate admissibility weaknesses (Daubert/Frye) from weight-of-evidence weaknesses
Flag assumptions lacking independent verification
Flag opinions where CV does not support claimed expertise
Verify the controlling admissibility standard before drafting exclusion motions

Key changes from original:

Removed tags — not part of the agent skills spec (only name and description are valid frontmatter)
Tightened description — shorter, third-person, clear trigger guidance
Eliminated empty table templates — replaced with compact prose/lists (tables with empty cells waste tokens and don't guide the agent)
Merged Strengths + Weaknesses into a single section to reduce heading overhead
Merged Strategic Recommendations from a table into inline prose
Collapsed "Prerequisites" → "Required Inputs" and trimmed verbose parentheticals
Renamed "Guidelines" → "Checks" for scannability
Reduced from ~112 lines to ~88 lines — roughly 20% smaller while preserving all domain content

Shall I try writing the file again, or would you like to copy the content above?