Witness interview plan for evidence gathering

Nothing here is legal advice. A draft is a starting point for a qualified person, not a substitute for one.

Use the model to turn a defined set of pleadings, correspondence and existing statements into an interview plan that your team can check against the bundle. You will end with ordered topics, precise document references, open questions and a list of matters the witness must confirm.

This is for dispute resolution teams preparing to take witness evidence. It is not legal advice. The resulting plan is a drafting aid and starting point for a qualified person, not a substitute for their judgment.

1. Set the interview purpose before loading papers

Write a short interview brief in the matter workspace. Do this before you provide any documents. It stops the plan becoming a general summary of the dispute.

Include:

• the witness's name, role and relationship to the events;
• the issues on which you need their factual evidence;
• the period to cover;
• what evidence already exists from that witness;
• whether the interview is for a first account, a statement update, disclosure follow-up or preparation for a later step;
• topics that another witness will cover, so the plan does not duplicate them;
• any handling restrictions for the material.

Use neutral language. Write Establish what the witness recalls about the meeting on 14 May, not Confirm that the claimant accepted the revised terms. The first asks for evidence. The second assumes an answer.

2. Make a document register the source of truth

Create a register before you start the drafting prompt. Give every item a stable identifier that your team can find in the bundle.

Field	Example	Why it matters
Document ID	D-014	Lets you trace each question to a source
Date	14 May 2024	Keeps chronology visible
Type	Email, pleading, statement	Helps weigh what the document is for
Author and recipient	A Patel to J Green	Identifies knowledge and participants
Location	Bundle 2, pp. 143-145	Lets the interviewer retrieve it quickly
Short description	Email arranging meeting	Avoids vague labels

For pleadings, register the relevant paragraph range as well as the bundle location. For an existing statement, record paragraph numbers. If a document is incomplete, translated, an image, or has uncertain metadata, mark that in the register rather than silently correcting it.

Provide the documents and the register using the available document workflow. File handling and available capabilities can vary with the version and setup, so check the relevant guidance in the xAI documentation overview before you load a case file.

3. Ask for a source-bound first plan

Give the model the interview brief, document register and source material. Then use one prompt that imposes a fixed output structure. You want a working agenda, not prose that merely describes the papers.

Use this prompt, replacing the bracketed text:

You are assisting with preparation of a factual witness interview. This is not legal advice and you must not decide legal issues, assess credibility or suggest a litigation outcome.

Witness: [name and role]
Interview purpose: [purpose]
Period: [start date to end date]
Issues to explore: [list]
Documents: [paste register and source material]

Produce a witness interview plan in chronological topic order. For each topic provide:
1. Topic heading and relevant date or period.
2. What the documents say, using only stated facts.
3. Exact document IDs, page locations and paragraph numbers where supplied.
4. Open, non-leading questions for the witness.
5. Documents to show the witness, in a sensible order.
6. Points requiring the witness's confirmation, correction or explanation.
7. Gaps, inconsistencies or unclear chronology, labelled as questions rather than conclusions.

Separate alleged facts from established document contents. If a reference is absent or uncertain, write NOT VERIFIED. Do not invent dates, attendees, quotations, document locations or events.

Ask for the plan in a table only if the document set is small. For a substantial record, headings and bullet points are easier to use during an interview. Keep the final plan in the matter's usual working format, then preserve the source register alongside it.

4. Check the plan against the papers yourself

Do not treat clean formatting as accuracy. Review the output with the register open and test each proposed factual proposition.

Check these items in order:

1. Sample every topic, then check all important or disputed points. Confirm that the cited document says what the plan reports.
2. Check dates, names, senders, recipients, meeting attendees and document page references against the original.
3. Compare the plan with the pleadings. It should cover material pleaded assertions without presenting them as proved facts.
4. Compare it with the existing witness statement. Mark matters already addressed, new issues and apparent differences.
5. Read each question aloud. Replace any question that embeds an assumed fact with an open question.
6. Identify documents that should be shown together, such as an email chain and its attachment. Put them in the order the witness can follow.

A useful red flag is a precise detail without a document ID. Treat it as unsupported until you locate the source. Another is wording such as the witness knew, the meeting agreed, or this proves. Change it to a question or attribute it to the relevant document.

If you see this	Treat it as	What to do
A date not in the register	Possible invention or inference	Find a source or label it NOT VERIFIED
A single question covering several events	An unfocused topic	Split it into date, participants, event and follow-up
A pleading allegation stated as fact	Loss of neutrality	Attribute it to the pleading and ask for the witness's account
A missing attachment or thread	Incomplete context	Retrieve it before relying on the topic

5. Run the interview plan as a live record

Use the plan as an agenda, not a script. Start with the witness's own account before showing key documents. Then use the referenced documents to test sequence, authorship, receipt, actions and reasons.

During the interview, record the response under each topic and separately note:

• documents the witness says exist but are not in the set;
• names of additional people with relevant knowledge;
• corrections to dates, descriptions or document attribution;
• matters the witness cannot recall;
• points requiring follow-up evidence.

After the meeting, update the plan rather than creating an unconnected note. Mark each point as confirmed, corrected, not recalled, new document identified, or follow-up required. This gives the lawyer reviewing the evidence a visible route from the papers, through the interview, to the next task.

When the plan does not work

If the output is generic, narrow the interview brief and provide the document register again. If references are wrong, stop using the plan as a source and rebuild it from a cleaned register with stable bundle and paragraph locations. If it misses a pleaded issue, add that issue explicitly to the brief and ask for a coverage check against the relevant pleading paragraphs.

Where the papers conflict, do not ask the model to resolve the conflict. Create a topic that identifies both sources and asks the witness for their own account. Escalate substantive evidential, procedural and legal decisions to the qualified person responsible for the matter.