LAWTECH.MY — Practical legal technology for Malaysian practice
AI Playbook

Notes of Evidence Analysis

Structured workflow for notes of evidence analysis: 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.

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

Analyse `[NOTES OF EVIDENCE / TRANSCRIPT]` against the pleadings, witness statements and issues.

For each witness, identify:

- evidence supporting each party;
- admissions;
- concessions and qualifications;
- contradictions;
- matters not challenged;
- matters not put where required;
- credibility and reliability points grounded in the record;
- documentary confirmations or conflicts;
- evidential objections and rulings;
- transcript errors requiring checking.

Cite page and line references. Then update the issue matrix to show what is proved, disputed, abandoned, unsupported or no longer material.

---

# G. Trial and Appellate Submissions

Repository section: Case Management and Trial Preparation

Stage: Trial / submissions

Suggested use: replace all square-bracket placeholders before running the prompt. For client-confidential materials, prefer a private or local model where available.

JurisdictionMalaysia / adaptable
Practice AreaCivil Litigation
Party RoleAny / as prompt specifies
Lifecycle StageTrial / submissions
Document TypeCase Management and Trial Preparation
Prompt Number37
Required Inputs
Expected OutputNotes of Evidence Analysis output structured for litigation practice.
Reviewed On2026-07-26
Version1.0
Verification ChecklistDistinguish 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.