---
title: "Draft an authenticity challenge or expert-instruction letter"
url: "https://ailawframework.com/obligations/incoming-evidence-deepfakes-and-synthetic-documents/draft-an-authenticity-challenge-or-expert-instruction-letter"
type: "task"
site: "AI Law Framework"
id: "A44-A20260923-2"
practice_area: "Incoming evidence — deepfakes & synthetic documents"
tier: "red"
lawyer_review: "required"
last_reviewed: "2026-10-22"
---

# Draft an authenticity challenge or expert-instruction letter

> The tool tabulates the disputed exhibits against the authenticity checklist, the metadata mismatches and the chain-of-custody gaps, and indexes the native files, export logs and hash values held for the examiner.…

Canonical page: https://ailawframework.com/obligations/incoming-evidence-deepfakes-and-synthetic-documents/draft-an-authenticity-challenge-or-expert-instruction-letter  
Last reviewed: 2026-10-22

Site index for agents: https://ailawframework.com/llms.txt

## Key facts

| Fact | Value |
| --- | --- |
| Practice area | [Incoming evidence — deepfakes & synthetic documents](https://ailawframework.com/obligations/incoming-evidence-deepfakes-and-synthetic-documents.md) |
| Human involvement | Red: Lawyer writes; AI may check, clarify or collect data |
| How AI is used | The tool tabulates the disputed exhibits against the authenticity checklist, the metadata mismatches and the chain-of-custody gaps, and indexes the native files, export logs and hash values held for the examiner. Once the lawyer has written the challenge, it checks each allegation of fabrication or alteration back to a numbered item in that table and lists the allegations with no source yet; it writes no part of the challenge — no outline, no suggested paragraphs and no proposed grounds of objection. |
| What the lawyer must review | The lawyer writes both documents. Before alleging that an exhibit is fabricated or synthetic they satisfy themselves there are reasonable grounds on material they have examined, not on a tool's flag, and check each ground against the exhibit, the metadata comparison and the custody record themselves. They settle the questions to the examiner in their own words so the opinion is not led, and confirm the letter lists the documents and native copies actually supplied and serves the court's expert code. |
| Written for / versions | 1 jurisdiction versions below |

## Checking plan

Do not allege fabrication without a basis. The expert brief must not lead.

- What the AI does: Produce a first-draft challenge outline or letter of instruction from the checklist and the mismatches, listing questions for the examiner.
- What the lawyer does: Set the scope, verify the evidence, resolve exceptions and approve the final output for its intended use.
- Basis: Suggested checking approach based on the task guidance. Complete the assessment for the actual tool, information and jurisdiction.

## Checks the lawyer makes

1. Confirm the output against the client’s instructions and the complete relevant source material, including omissions or contradictions.
2. Verify every relied-on citation, figure and name against the source document.
3. The responsible lawyer approves the exact version before use.

## Sources

- [Harvey: How to Write a Demand Letter Using AI](https://www.harvey.ai/blog/ai-demand-letter) (checked 2026-09-23)

## Forms and precedents for this task

| Form or precedent | Kind | AI level | Summary |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| [Federal Court checklist: generative AI and evidentiary material](https://ailawframework.com/precedents/incoming-evidence-deepfakes-and-synthetic-documents/federal-court-genai-evidence-disclosure.md) | Checklist | Yellow | A checklist for evidentiary material in the Federal Court where generative AI may have been used: when the practice note requires disclosure, what that disclosure must say, and what must not be put… |
| [NSW Supreme Court limits on generative AI in evidentiary material](https://ailawframework.com/precedents/incoming-evidence-deepfakes-and-synthetic-documents/nsw-genai-limits-on-evidence.md) | Checklist | Yellow | A checklist of Supreme Court Practice Note SC Gen 23 on affidavits, witness statements, exhibits, and expert reports: the prohibition, the disclosure that generative AI was not used, and what an… |
| [Protocol for exchange of native electronic files where authenticity is in issue](https://ailawframework.com/precedents/incoming-evidence-deepfakes-and-synthetic-documents/native-file-exchange-protocol.md) | Agreement | Red | Short protocol the parties can adopt for a file whose authenticity, identity or provenance is disputed: native file, hash, metadata export, no public AI, and a timetable for a s 167 request. |
| [Letter asking that devices and native files be preserved](https://ailawframework.com/precedents/incoming-evidence-deepfakes-and-synthetic-documents/device-preservation-letter.md) | Letter | Red | Letter asking a party or a non-party to keep devices, accounts and native files so that an authenticity question can still be investigated, without claiming that the letter is a court order. |
| [NSW verification of citations and evidence references in written submissions](https://ailawframework.com/precedents/incoming-evidence-deepfakes-and-synthetic-documents/nsw-verification-of-evidence-references.md) | Checklist | Yellow | A checklist for the verification Supreme Court Practice Note SC Gen 23 requires in written submissions: citations exist, are accurate and relevant, and references to evidence were checked by a… |

Signed-in accounts can read the full text of each one.

## Jurisdiction versions

| Jurisdiction | Level |
| --- | --- |
| [United States](https://ailawframework.com/obligations/incoming-evidence-deepfakes-and-synthetic-documents/draft-an-authenticity-challenge-or-expert-instruction-letter/united-states.md) | Red |

*Practice guidance for planning and review. Confirm current primary sources and the requirements of the actual matter. This is general information, not legal advice.*