Guide
Evidence bundle review
A hearing or trial bundle is supposed to contain everything the tribunal needs. In practice, bundles hide three problems: documents that are referred to but not there, facts that conflict across documents, and conclusions that rest on a document nobody has read closely. A bundle review finds these before the other side does.
What to look for
Referenced-but-absent documents. An email says "see attached". The attachment isn't in the bundle. A report relies on "the original notes". The notes aren't there.
Conflicts. Two documents give different dates, figures or accounts of the same event.
Unexplained chronological breaks. Nothing in the bundle for six weeks around the key event.
Incomplete expert material. A report without its instructions, its sources, or the documents it relied on.
Missing originals. Copies where the original matters, such as metadata, handwriting or a signature.
LIA's working holds one rule throughout: absence is not suppression. A missing document is classified as missing or unresolved. Its significance needs investigation, not assumption.
Bundle review checklist (copy)
[ ] Index matches contents (page count, order)
[ ] Every "attached" / "enclosed" / "see" reference located
[ ] Expert reports: instructions, sources, documents relied on, all present
[ ] Date conflicts listed (doc A vs doc B)
[ ] Figure conflicts listed
[ ] Gaps in chronology > [x] days around key events
[ ] Originals needed vs copies supplied
[ ] Disclosure gaps: categories expected but absent
[ ] Each gap classified: MISSING / UNRESOLVED / EXPLAINED
How LIA Pro helps
Put the bundle on a matter and run Review. For a large bundle, tick Split a large search so each file is searched one at a time and listed as found or not found, with a short quote. A single pass can miss a later page. The split shows what was read.
What lands is classified as primary, inference or gap. Typical issues the working names include contradictory facts, unexplained chronology, missing evidence, disclosure gaps, circular reasoning, and assumptions disguised as facts.
Worked shape (fictional)
Gap (missing): the 21 April call note refers to an attachment that isn't in the bundle. Conflict: the incident report gives 3 May. The insurer's letter gives 2 May. Chronology: no documents between 4 and 29 May. Classification: all three unresolved. Request the attachment and the insurer's source for the date.
After the review
Turn each gap into an action: a disclosure request, a question for a witness, or a note for submissions. Export the working, with its classification and caution, to the file note. Show working lets a colleague see the reconstruction and the competing readings, not just the conclusion.
Questions
What is an evidence bundle review?
A structured check of a hearing or trial bundle for missing documents, conflicts, chronological gaps and incomplete expert material.
Does a missing document mean something was hidden?
Not necessarily. LIA classifies it as missing or unresolved. Its significance needs investigation.
Can LIA review a very large bundle?
Yes. Use Split a large search on Review, so each file is searched in turn and coverage is listed.