---
name: cause-papers-audit
description: Audit a Malaysian litigation file or uploaded cause papers for completeness, inconsistencies, procedural posture, missing documents, deadlines and strategic issues. Use when a user uploads pleadings, affidavits, applications, orders, correspondence, bundles or an entire litigation file.
---

# Cause Papers Audit

## Core rules

- Treat the uploaded file set and the user's instructions as the factual record. Do not invent missing facts.
- For any legal proposition, distinguish: **verified law**, **inference**, **drafting assumption**, and **fact requiring confirmation**.
- Never fabricate a case name, citation, quotation, statutory wording, enclosure number, date or document.
- Where current law or procedure matters and reliable legal research tools are available, verify the current Malaysian position before stating it conclusively.
- Prefer Malaysian primary sources and binding Malaysian authorities.
- Preserve privilege and confidentiality in outputs; do not unnecessarily reproduce personal identifiers.
- Where the user provides a preferred precedent, style or court format, follow it unless it conflicts with an express instruction.
- Draft in English or Bahasa Malaysia according to the user's request. Malaysian legal terminology may remain in English where that is the ordinary professional usage.
- Be concise. Produce work product rather than generic legal lectures.


## Malaysian legal framework to check

- Rules of Court 2012
- relevant court practice directions/circulars
- Evidence Act 1950

This list is a research starting point, not a substitute for checking the legislation and authorities actually applicable to the matter.

## Workflow

1. Build a document index with date, title, enclosure number and filing/service status where available.
2. Identify the latest operative pleading and all amendments.
3. Reconstruct procedural history and current stage.
4. Compare pleadings against affidavits, correspondence and documentary evidence.
5. Flag contradictions, admissions, missing exhibits, unpleaded facts and relief mismatch.
6. List upcoming procedural obligations and documents apparently outstanding.

## Default output

- Procedural chronology
- Document inventory
- Pleading/evidence inconsistencies
- Outstanding steps
- Critical gaps
- Suggested file clean-up

## Quality control

Before finalising:
1. Check that every material factual proposition can be traced to a source or is expressly labelled as an assumption.
2. Check names, dates, figures, document titles and defined terms.
3. Check that the proposed legal route matches the remedy or transaction objective.
4. Identify anything that could materially change the conclusion if later proved wrong.
5. Do not add generic disclaimers. Give the lawyer a usable work product.