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.
Dental and medical-record matters, screened by a dental professional with 15+ years inside the practices that produce the records.
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
Legal tools work from the record. We work on it.
Research, drafting, and strategy all depend on the same assumption: that the underlying record is sound.
We test that assumption — rebuild the sequence, keep contradictions visible, name what is missing, and tie every finding to its source.
Full Disclosure Verdict
Resolution without disclosure is only selection.
A verdict should disclose more than what was decided. It should preserve the conflict that required a decision, identify the evidence that governed it, state what remains uncertain, and make the path to the conclusion available for review.
| Conventional output | Full Disclosure Verdict |
|---|---|
| Reports the conclusion | Preserves the conclusion and its basis |
| Collapses competing entries | Keeps the material conflict visible |
| Separates the answer from its sources | Attaches each material claim to its source |
| Treats chronology as background | Uses chronology to establish what changed |
| Absorbs uncertainty into the result | States uncertainty and unresolved questions |
| Produces an answer to carry forward | Produces a record that can be examined |
Where evidence conflicts, selection alone cannot explain the result. A decision that cannot be examined cannot be meaningfully reviewed. Full Disclosure Verdict preserves the basis of that review.
The verdict may close the question. The record remains open to examination.
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 patient, 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 | Dr. A. Fictional, DDS | Initial comprehensive exam. Bitewing radiographs taken. | Supported | |
| 2021-03-04 | Dr. A. Fictional, DDS | Panoramic radiograph — no comparison notes filed. | Unresolved | |
| 2021-09-17 | Riverbend Dental Group (fictional) | No record of scheduled 6-month recall visit. | Missing Source | |
| 2022-01-11 | Dr. B. Sample, DMD | Restorative work noted on tooth #19; prior chart entry lists tooth #18. | Contradicted | |
| 2022-06-02 | Dr. B. Sample, DMD | Follow-up note references "prior imaging" without specifying which study. | 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 dental expert, we can connect you with a vetted dental 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 dental expert.
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
- Diagnose patients