Bundle Review and Evidence Index
Structured workflow for bundle review and evidence index: organise the supplied facts and documents, identify missing information, draft or analyse in stages, and verify facts, authorities and assumptions before use.
This is a reusable litigation prompt from the Litigation AI Prompt Repository. It is intended for Malaysian civil litigation but can be adapted by changing the placeholders. Use the Universal Litigator Control Block first where source discipline, adversarial review and authority verification matter.
Prompt
Review `[DOCUMENT BUNDLE]` document by document. Create an evidence index. For every document record: - document number and filename; - date; - author, sender, recipient and copied parties; - document type; - short description; - material factual propositions supported; - propositions adverse to `[PARTY]`; - authenticity, execution, hearsay or admissibility concern; - relationship to pleaded or prospective issues; - privilege or confidentiality concern; - duplicate, version or missing-attachment issue; - proposed bundle category and status. Then identify documentary gaps, suspicious discontinuities, inconsistent versions and documents referred to but absent. Do not treat a document as proving the truth of every statement recorded in it.
Repository section: Document and Evidence Assessment
Stage: Pre-action / pleadings / pre-trial
Suggested use: replace all square-bracket placeholders before running the prompt. For client-confidential materials, prefer a private or local model where available.
| Jurisdiction | Malaysia / adaptable |
| Practice Area | Civil Litigation |
| Party Role | Any / as prompt specifies |
| Lifecycle Stage | Pre-action / pleadings / pre-trial |
| Document Type | Document and Evidence Assessment |
| Prompt Number | 6 |
| Required Inputs | |
| Expected Output | Bundle Review and Evidence Index output structured for litigation practice. |
| Reviewed On | 2026-07-26 |
| Version | 1.0 |
| Verification Checklist | Distinguish facts, allegations and assumptions., Cite the document/page for each material fact where possible., Identify missing or contradictory evidence., Do not invent authorities., Check every authority and quote only verified propositions., Separate proposed drafting from facts requiring client confirmation. |
