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

# Prepare an authenticity challenge or an expert-instruction letter

> Index the exhibit, the foundation the proponent offers, and the gaps. Write no sentence of the motion, the brief, the expert letter, or any other paper that will be filed or sent.

Canonical page: https://ailawframework.com/obligations/incoming-evidence-deepfakes-and-synthetic-documents/draft-an-authenticity-challenge-or-expert-instruction-letter/united-states  
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 | Index the exhibit, the foundation the proponent offers, and the gaps. Write no sentence of the motion, the brief, the expert letter, or any other paper that will be filed or sent. |
| What the lawyer must review | You write the challenge. Rule 11(b) is your certification of the legal and factual contentions. An expert on fabrication or a process must meet Rule 702: the opinion must be more likely than not based on sufficient facts, reliable principles and methods, and a reliable application. Rule 3.3 requires you to correct a false statement of fact or law, including one that came from a tool. Formal Opinion 512: review citations and analysis before they go to a court. |
| Written for | United States |
| Applies to | [Draft an authenticity challenge or expert-instruction letter](https://ailawframework.com/obligations/incoming-evidence-deepfakes-and-synthetic-documents/draft-an-authenticity-challenge-or-expert-instruction-letter.md) |

## Checking plan

- What the AI does: Index the exhibit, the foundation the proponent offers, and the gaps. Write no sentence of the motion, the brief, the expert letter, or any other paper that will be filed or sent.
- Basis: Checked against the linked sources on 22 October 2026. Confirm the current instrument before reliance.

## Notes

- Proposed Rule 707 was not recommended for action on 7 May 2026. Do not cite it as law.
- A working draft of Rule 901(c) on generative-AI fabrication was held in abeyance in that report. It is not a rule.

## Sources

- [Federal Rule of Evidence 702, Testimony by Expert Witnesses](https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_702) (checked 2026-10-22)
- [Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11](https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_11) (checked 2026-10-22)
- [ABA Model Rule 3.3, Candor toward the Tribunal](https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/rule_3_3_candor_toward_the_tribunal/) (checked 2026-10-22)
- [ABA Formal Opinion 512, Generative Artificial Intelligence Tools (29 July 2024)](https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/professional_responsibility/ethics-opinions/aba-formal-opinion-512.pdf) (checked 2026-10-22)

## 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.

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