← All guides·Guide 7 of 11
Do not start with “run my case”. Start with two contained jobs whose answers you can check against the documents: an index of what is in the folder, and a chronology built from it. What you find when you check them will teach you more about the tool than anything written here.
Why these two jobs
An index and a chronology have three qualities that make them the right first tasks. They are mechanical, so Claude does them well. They are checkable, because every entry points at a document and a page. And they are useful even when imperfect, because the check itself makes you read the file.
They also produce the two things every later task depends on: a list of what Claude has actually read, and a set of facts each pinned to a source.
Step 1 — Build the index
With the matter folder connected, copy this prompt.
Build an index of every document in this folder except _hopper/. Save it as _index/index.md. One entry per document with: file name and path; what kind of document it is (pleading, affidavit, letter, email, judgment, exhibit, transcript, other); its date; who it is from and to, or the parties; a two-line description of what it says; page count; and whether every page was readable, with the numbers of any pages that were not. Do not infer anything that is not in the document. If you cannot tell the date or author, say "not stated". You may open every document to read it. Do not change, rename, move or delete any existing file. The only file you may create is _index/index.md.
The result is a plain-text file in the _index/ folder. It is meant to be kept, and updated when documents arrive, so that anyone opening the folder can see what is in it.
Step 2 — Check the index
Three checks, and they take ten minutes.
Count. The number of entries should match the number of documents in the working folders. If it does not, ask which files were skipped and why.
Sample. Open three documents at random and read their entries. The date, the author and the description should match what you see. A description that is more confident than the document is the thing to look for: “letter demanding payment” for a letter that asks whether payment has been received.
Readability. Every document with unreadable pages should say so in its entry. Compare with the list of [?] marks from Guide 3. If a document with known bad pages is recorded as fully readable, the index is not to be trusted on readability, and that matters for every summary that follows.
Step 3 — A one-page overview
Once the index is right, ask for the overview that a junior would give you on the first morning:
Using only _index/index.md and the documents it lists, write a one-page overview of the matter: the parties and who acts for whom; the forum and case number; what has been filed and when; what appears to be outstanding; and any document the index says could not be fully read. Give the file name for every statement. Save it as _index/overview.md. Do not change, rename, move or delete any existing file.
Read it with the index open. A statement without a file name is the first one to check.
Step 4 — Build the chronology
Now the chronology. The rules in the prompt matter more than the wording; they are what keep the result checkable.
Build a chronology from the documents in correspondence/ and pleadings/. Save it as drafts/Latest Draft/Chronology.docx and also as drafts/Latest Draft/Chronology.xlsx. One line per event: date; what happened, in one sentence, in the words of the document as far as possible; who said or did it; the source document and page or paragraph. Rules: every line must have a source reference; do not infer an event from silence; do not treat an allegation as a fact, and say "alleges" where the document does; where a date is unclear or missing, say so rather than estimating; list at the end every document you used and every page you could not read. You may open every document to read it. Do not change, rename, move or delete any existing file. The only files you may create are the two chronology files.
Claude produces the two files in the drafts folder. Open the spreadsheet; it is the easier one to check.
Step 5 — Check the chronology
A chronology reads well whether or not it is complete. That is the problem, and these five checks are the answer.
Coverage. Ask: “List the documents and page ranges you used for the chronology, and any pages you could not read.” Compare the list with the index. The gaps are where the missing events are.
Pinpoints. Every line has a source reference. The lines that do not, or whose reference is vague, are the first you check.
Sample. Open the documents at five or more of the references, chosen at random, not the ones that look doubtful. Does the document say what the line says it says? On a first run it is common to find that most are right and one or two have been quietly improved.
Attribution. Is each event pinned to the right person and the right kind of statement? An allegation in a founding affidavit is not an admitted fact. A question put to a witness is not the witness’s evidence. Language models blur these because the words look the same.
Dates, amounts and names. Every one you are going to rely on, against the document. These are where small errors do the most damage, and they are the easiest things to check.
Two made-up examples of what going wrong looks like. The chronology says: “3 March: the respondent admitted receiving the notice.” The answering affidavit, at paragraph 14, says: “I do not dispute that a notice was sent on 3 March.” Not disputing that something was sent is not admitting that it was received; the line has upgraded the evidence. Or the chronology says: “12 May: Ms K confirmed that the meeting took place.” The transcript at page 45 shows a question that assumed the meeting, and an answer about something else; an assumption in a question has become a witness’s evidence.
Step 6 — Correct, and record what was checked
Correct the lines in the spreadsheet yourself, or ask Claude to correct specific lines and give the reason; do not ask it to “fix any errors”, because that is an invitation to change lines that were right.
Then add a short note at the foot of the chronology, or in _index/, recording what was checked: the coverage list, the sampled references, the corrections made, the date and by whom. If you delegate the checking later, this note is what tells you it happened.
What this teaches
By the end of the check you will know three things about the tool that no demonstration would have shown you: which kinds of document it reads well; where it upgrades a hedged statement into a firm one; and how much of the time saved by the first draft is spent by the check. The last is the honest measure of what the tool is worth on a matter, and it varies more than the marketing suggests.
Check yourself
At the end of this guide you should have _index/index.md, checked by count, sample and readability; a one-page overview with a file name for every statement; a chronology in Word and Excel with a source for every line; the five checks done and the corrections made; and a note of what was checked, by whom and when.
Sources on file: LPC Code of Conduct, para 57.1 (not misleading a court “in respect of what is in papers before the court or tribunal, including any transcript of evidence”).