返回 Skill 列表
extension
分类: 开发与工程无需 API Key

expert-witness-summary

生成结构化、带有引用锚点的专家证人报告摘要,用于审讯、听证会和庭审准备。将资格、方法论、意见、假设和定量发现提炼成可导航的参考资料。在美国诉讼中总结专家证人报告、保留专家披露或反驳专家报告时使用。

person作者: jakexiaohubgithub

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