Record-integrity intelligence
A conclusion is only as good as the record behind it.
Full Disclosure Verdict screens a case file before an expert reads it. We rebuild the timeline, keep every contradiction visible, flag what is missing, and tie each finding to the page it came from.
For plaintiff and defense counsel — any case type, any party.
The record
The absence of gaps is not the presence of proof.
A complete file is not a read file. Screening shows what it supports, where it conflicts, and what is still open.
Accountability
Most tools organize the record. We test the conclusion against it.
We do not stop at collection, chronology, or summary. Every material finding is checked against its source, its place in the timeline, what contradicts it, and what is missing — with the reasoning kept beside the result.
Organization improves access. Discernment determines what the record can support.
We do not replace legal expertise. We preserve the evidentiary distinctions it depends on.
The difference
The record is not read for what it holds. It is tested for what it can hold up.
A summary tells you what is in the file. We examine the weight being put on it.
Output
- Typical tools
- A score. No source.
- Full Disclosure Verdict
- Both entries. Document and page.
The conflict
- Typical tools
- Resolved silently. One entry wins. Nobody saw the vote.
- Full Disclosure Verdict
- Preserved. Named. Neither entry dies.
Reasoning
- Typical tools
- A number. Arrived at nowhere.
- Full Disclosure Verdict
- Source → chronology → path → conviction. The route is the proof.
Where it lands
- Typical tools
- A verdict you carry.
- Full Disclosure Verdict
- A record you hold.
Every finding stays attached to its source.
We do not supply the conclusion. We show where the record supports it, where that support runs out, and where certainty has outrun the evidence under it.
A conclusion cannot claim more from the record than the record can establish.
Same discipline
Evidence owes nothing to the side that offers it.
Plaintiff or defense, nothing here is tuned toward a preferred answer. You get what the record supports, what it contradicts, and what it cannot yet establish.
Discernment
A finding is only as defensible as the path between source and conclusion.
- Evidence stays separate from assertion.
- Inference stays separate from fact.
- Contradictions are preserved, not quietly resolved.
- Missing evidence is never counted as proof.
- Uncertainty stays visible until a qualified human resolves it.
- Favorable and unfavorable findings get the same scrutiny.
What it organizes
The record does not testify until it is examined.
Every item traces back to a source document.
Record Inventory
Every document received, indexed by origin, date range, and page count. Nothing in the file goes unaccounted for.
Source-Linked Chronology
What happened, in order, with every entry linked to the document and page it came from.
Missing-Document & Gap Detection
Records that should be there and are not, plus unexplained breaks in the timeline — flagged for follow-up.
Contradiction Preservation
Entries that conflict are set side by side and left that way. We surface the conflict; we do not settle it.
Attorney & Licensed-Expert Handoff
Citation-ready materials built for fast attorney review and a clean handoff to a licensed expert.
Illustrative demonstration
Every name, date, and entry below is fabricated for illustration only. No real party, provider, or case information appears anywhere in this demonstration.
Five evidence planes — select one
Chronology table
The same kind of record, laid out as a filterable, source-linked timeline.
| Date | Provider | Entry | Status | Source trace |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2021-03-04 | J. Reyes, Site Supervisor | Initial incident report filed. Photographs attached to file. | Supported | |
| 2021-03-04 | J. Reyes, Site Supervisor | Access log pulled same day — no comparison notes filed. | Unresolved | |
| 2021-09-17 | Northfield Logistics (fictional) | No record of the scheduled 30-day corrective-action review. | Missing Source | |
| 2022-01-11 | R. Alvarez | Witness statement names Entity B as responsible; prior notice named Entity A. | Contradicted | |
| 2022-06-02 | R. Alvarez | Follow-up note references "the prior report" without specifying which one. | Unresolved |
Demonstration data only. This table does not represent any real individual, provider, or matter, and no document-upload functionality is active in this build.
Pricing
Priced below the decision it informs.
One screening costs a fraction of one expert retainer — enough to find out what is in the file before committing to the larger spend.
Screening
$499/ case
Inventory, source-linked timeline, gap and contradiction flags, and source tracing — one case, one pass. The read before you decide on an expert.
Firm / Volume
Custom
For firms screening cases regularly. Priced per case at volume — contact us for a firm rate.
Next step
We do not supply the opinion. We supply the expert.
We do not replace an expert witness. We give you a source-linked read on the record so you can decide whether to retain one. When the record raises questions that need a licensed expert in the relevant field, we can connect you with a vetted expert witness for formal engagement.
Get started
Submit a case for screening.
A few details are enough to begin. No documents are uploaded here — this just starts the conversation.
- 01
Submit
A few details about the case — no records required yet.
- 02
Screening
Reviewed within one business day.
- 03
Response
Your results — plus an expert witness introduction when the record raises questions for a licensed expert in the relevant field.
Who does the work
Megan Sunde
Screening is done by one person, not a queue. Fifteen years reading clinical records inside the practices that produce them, trained in juror and open-source research methodology, and certified in the framework this system's discipline is built on.
Legal research
- Jury Research Analyst Certification
- Juror and open-source research methodology
Clinical record
- Minnesota Licensed Dental Assistant
- DANB — Radiation Health and Safety
- DANB — Infection Control
- 15+ years clinical practice
Method
- AI Fluency: Framework & Foundations — Anthropic
- Delegation · Description · Discernment · Diligence
Credentials describe the training behind the screening work. They are not a license to practice law or to render dental, medical, or standard-of-care opinions, and Full Disclosure Verdict does not offer any. Certificate names appear as issued; listing them implies no endorsement or affiliation by the issuing organizations.
Scope
This work ends where licensed opinion begins.
Full Disclosure Verdict identifies what the record supports, where it conflicts, what is absent, and what remains unresolved. It does not determine standard of care, causation, damages, or case merit.
- Provide legal advice
- Provide diagnostic or clinical opinions