AI Playbook

Agreed, Disputed and Irrelevant Facts

Structured workflow for agreed, disputed and irrelevant facts: 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 #Pleadings #Case-Management #Agreed-Facts #Issues #Post-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

Compare the pleadings and evidence in `[MATERIALS]`. Prepare:

1. proposed agreed facts;
2. facts admitted on the pleadings;
3. facts genuinely disputed;
4. apparent disputes that are semantic or immaterial;
5. legal issues for determination;
6. mixed questions of fact and law;
7. issues that no longer arise;
8. facts requiring clarification before agreement.

Draft each agreed fact neutrally and narrowly so that accepting it does not concede a disputed inference. Cite its source and relevant pleading paragraphs.

---

# D. Pleadings — Drafting

Repository section: Pleadings — Issues and Material Facts

Stage: Post-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	Post-pleadings / pre-trial
Document Type	Pleadings — Issues and Material Facts
Prompt Number	12
Required Inputs
Expected Output	Agreed, Disputed and Irrelevant Facts 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.