NotebookLM Litigation Prompts: Expert Evidence
Short sequential NotebookLM prompts for expert evidence using uploaded litigation documents, with source/page grounding and gap checking.
Use only as a supervised litigation preparation aid. Verify every material point against the uploaded sources and current law.
Prompt
Standing instruction: Answer only from the uploaded sources. Identify the document and page/source supporting each material proposition. Do not invent missing facts. Where the documents conflict, identify the conflict. Distinguish fact, allegation, evidence and submission. Run these prompts sequentially: 1. Summarise the expert's opinion, assumptions, methodology and conclusions. 2. Identify every factual assumption relied upon by the expert. 3. Identify assumptions unsupported by the uploaded evidence. 4. Identify limitations or qualifications expressed by the expert. 5. Compare the two expert reports issue by issue. 6. Identify areas where the experts agree. 7. Identify areas where the experts disagree. 8. Identify documents relied upon by one expert but not the other. 9. Prepare cross-examination topics for the opposing expert. 10. Identify mathematical or factual inconsistencies in the expert report.
Description
Short sequential NotebookLM prompts for expert evidence using uploaded litigation documents, with source/page grounding and gap checking.
These prompts are intended to be run as a series rather than pasted as one long instruction. They work best after the relevant pleadings, affidavits, exhibits, correspondence, bundles, notes of evidence, judgments or appeal papers have been uploaded into the notebook.
Standing instruction
> Standing instruction: Answer only from the uploaded sources. Identify the document and page/source supporting each material proposition. Do not invent missing facts. Where the documents conflict, identify the conflict. Distinguish fact, allegation, evidence and submission.
Prompt series
Summarise the expert's opinion, assumptions, methodology and conclusions.
Identify every factual assumption relied upon by the expert.
Identify assumptions unsupported by the uploaded evidence.
Identify limitations or qualifications expressed by the expert.
Compare the two expert reports issue by issue.
Identify areas where the experts agree.
Identify areas where the experts disagree.
Identify documents relied upon by one expert but not the other.
Prepare cross-examination topics for the opposing expert.
Identify mathematical or factual inconsistencies in the expert report.
---
Verification
- Require document and page/source references for material propositions.
- Separate facts, allegations, evidence and submissions.
- Flag contradictions, missing documents and uncertain points.
- Do not use the output directly for filing without lawyer review.
| Difficulty | Intermediate |
| Compatible Models | NotebookLM, Gemini |
| Expected Output | A source-grounded working table or issue list responsive to the prompt series, with missing evidence and conflicts identified. |
| Category | NotebookLM Litigation Prompts |
| Prompt Style | Short sequential prompt series |
| Series Number | 27 |
| Prompt Count | 10 |
| Reviewed On | 2026-10-01 |
| Version | 1.0 |