AI Playbook

Evidence-to-Element Matrix

Structured workflow for evidence-to-element matrix: organise the supplied facts and documents, identify missing information, draft or analyse in stages, and verify facts, authorities and assumptions before use.

Community feedback only. Editorial ordering is based on relevance, review status and currency.

#General AI #AI Playbook #Litigation #Evidence #Elements #Burden-Of-Proof #Pleadings #Pre-Trial

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

For every pleaded or prospective cause of action, defence and counterclaim, create an evidence-to-element matrix.

Include: legal element; burden of proof; pleaded paragraph; supporting oral evidence; supporting documentary evidence; opposing evidence; admissibility concern; proof gap; proposed witness; recommended step.

Highlight any essential element for which no presently admissible evidence exists. Distinguish evidence proving execution or communication of a document from evidence proving the truth of its contents.

---

# C. Pleadings — Issues and Material Facts

Repository section: Document and Evidence Assessment

Stage: 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	Pleadings / pre-trial
Document Type	Document and Evidence Assessment
Prompt Number	9
Required Inputs
Expected Output	Evidence-to-Element Matrix 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.