---
title: "Record whether evidence could rationally affect a fact in issue"
url: "https://ailawframework.com/obligations/incoming-evidence-deepfakes-and-synthetic-documents/record-whether-evidence-could-rationally-affect-a-fact-in-issue"
type: "task"
site: "AI Law Framework"
id: "A44-FL20261022-21"
practice_area: "Incoming evidence — deepfakes & synthetic documents"
tier: "yellow"
lawyer_review: "required"
last_reviewed: "2026-10-22"
---

# Record whether evidence could rationally affect a fact in issue

> From the fact in issue the lawyer has written down, and from the evidence the lawyer has marked, leave blank whether the evidence, if accepted, could rationally affect the assessment of the probability that the fact…

Canonical page: https://ailawframework.com/obligations/incoming-evidence-deepfakes-and-synthetic-documents/record-whether-evidence-could-rationally-affect-a-fact-in-issue  
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 | Yellow: Lawyer and AI draft together |
| How AI is used | From the fact in issue the lawyer has written down, and from the evidence the lawyer has marked, leave blank whether the evidence, if accepted, could rationally affect the assessment of the probability that the fact exists. Record that evidence is not taken to be irrelevant only because it relates only to the credibility of a witness, the admissibility of other evidence, or a failure to adduce evidence. Do not decide relevance. |
| What the lawyer must review | The lawyer decides relevance. Section 55(1) of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) says the evidence that is relevant in a proceeding is evidence that, if it were accepted, could rationally affect, directly or indirectly, the assessment of the probability of the existence of a fact in issue. Subsection (2) says evidence is not taken to be irrelevant only because it relates only to the credibility of a witness, the admissibility of other evidence, or a failure to adduce evidence. The tool does not apply that test. A separate task lists what is on the face of a document before any inference is drawn. This task does not draw an inference and does not decide admission. |
| Written for / versions | 1 jurisdiction versions below |

## Checking plan

**Source-by-source verification**

Trace relied-on content to independent sources and check for relevant material the output has missed.

- What the AI does: From the fact in issue the lawyer has written down, and from the evidence the lawyer has marked, leave blank whether the evidence, if accepted, could rationally affect the assessment of the probability that the fact exists. Record that evidence is not taken to be irrelevant only because it relates only to the credibility of a witness, the admissibility of other evidence, or a failure to adduce evidence. Do not decide relevance.
- What the lawyer does: The lawyer decides relevance. Section 55(1) of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) says the evidence that is relevant in a proceeding is evidence that, if it were accepted, could rationally affect, directly or indirectly, the assessment of the probability of the existence of a fact in issue. Subsection (2) says evidence is not taken to be irrelevant only because it relates only to the credibility of a witness, the admissibility of other evidence, or a failure to adduce evidence. The tool does not apply that test. A separate task lists what is on the face of a document before any inference is drawn. This task does not draw an inference and does not decide admission.
- Who reviews: Responsible lawyer with competence in the matter
- Basis: Practical workflow informed by the linked primary sources; the traffic light and working checks are editorial guidance, not a court classification.
- Why: The level reflects what the work is, the consequence of an error, and how much of the output the lawyer must independently re-derive.

## Checks the lawyer makes

1. Copy the fact in issue only if the lawyer has written it. Do not invent a fact.
2. Leave the rational-effect conclusion blank.
3. Keep the three cases in subsection (2). Do not treat them as the only relevant evidence.
4. Do not decide that the evidence is admissible.

## Notes

- These are suggested working checks. Confirm the required checking with the responsible lawyer before work starts; the checking approach does not establish permission to use AI.

## Sources

- [Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) s 55, relevant evidence](https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ea199580/s55.html) (checked 2026-10-22)

## Jurisdiction versions

| Jurisdiction | Level |
| --- | --- |
| [United States](https://ailawframework.com/obligations/incoming-evidence-deepfakes-and-synthetic-documents/record-whether-evidence-could-rationally-affect-a-fact-in-issue/united-states.md) | Yellow |

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