LIA
Open LIA Pro

Guide

Building a chronology from documents

A case chronology is the backbone of most litigation. Done well, it shows what happened, when, and on whose evidence. Done badly, it smooths over conflicts and fills gaps with what "must have" happened. Then it becomes a narrative masquerading as a record.

The rules of a good chronology

  1. Every entry has a source: document, page, or witness and page:line.
  2. Conflicts are shown, not resolved silently. If two documents give different dates, both go in.
  3. Inferred events are labelled. "Probably received by 3 May" is an inference and should say so.
  4. Gaps are visible. A period with no documents is a fact about the file.
  5. Time zones and date formats are normalised, with a note on how.

Chronology template (copy)

Date / time   | Event                     | Source (doc, page)   | Status     | Conflicts / notes
2025-03-14    | QA email flags tolerance  | Bundle 2, p.41       | Evidence   |
2025-04-21    | Call: supplier + QA lead  | Call note, p.3       | Evidence   | Refers to attachment (absent)
2025-04-30    | Test log: batch 7 fails   | Log, p.12            | Evidence   |
c.2025-05-01  | QA lead reads test log    | n/a                  | Inference  | No access record on file
2025-05-02    | Shipment                  | Delivery note        | Evidence   | Insurer letter says 3 May
2025-05-04 to |                           |                      | GAP        | No documents
2025-05-29

How LIA Pro helps

Naming a matter unlocks the evidence, chronology and review types. Put the documents on the matter. What lands is classified as primary, inference or gap, and stays on that matter.

Run Review with Split a large search for a big file, so each document is searched in turn and listed as found or not found, with a short quote. The working flags unexplained chronology and conflicting facts. It doesn't resolve them by assumption.

Deep Review runs two independent workings and settles them into agree, contest or gap, which is useful when the order of events is itself disputed.

Common chronology errors

  • Using the date a document was created when the issue is when it was received.
  • Treating "I don't recall" testimony as evidence that something didn't happen.
  • Dropping the conflicting source because it's "probably a typo".
  • Collapsing a gap into a single line so it disappears.

Chronology and Deep Review together

For a disputed sequence, run Deep Review on the chronology question itself, for example "Did the supplier receive the test log before shipment?". Two independent workings are settled into agree, contest or gap. A contested entry tells you where to focus disclosure requests and cross-examination.

Questions

What should a case chronology include?

Date, event, source with page reference, a status (evidence, inference or gap) and any conflicting sources.

Can AI build a chronology?

It can draft one from your documents. LIA keeps each entry sourced, labels inferred events, and shows gaps and conflicts rather than smoothing them.

How do I handle conflicting dates?

Record both sources and mark the entry as conflicted until resolved.

Related

Open LIA Pro