---
title: "Test whether a device-or-process presumption is available for an electronic document"
url: "https://ailawframework.com/obligations/incoming-evidence-deepfakes-and-synthetic-documents/test-whether-a-device-or-process-presumption-is-available-for-an-electro"
type: "task"
site: "AI Law Framework"
id: "A44-FL20261022-2"
practice_area: "Incoming evidence — deepfakes & synthetic documents"
tier: "yellow"
lawyer_review: "required"
last_reviewed: "2026-10-22"
---

# Test whether a device-or-process presumption is available for an electronic document

> From the papers the lawyer supplies, set out in a table the device or process that is said to have produced the document, the outcome the tendering party asserts, whether the document is said to be a business record,…

Canonical page: https://ailawframework.com/obligations/incoming-evidence-deepfakes-and-synthetic-documents/test-whether-a-device-or-process-presumption-is-available-for-an-electro  
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 papers the lawyer supplies, set out in a table the device or process that is said to have produced the document, the outcome the tendering party asserts, whether the document is said to be a business record, and whether it was produced for a proceeding or an investigation. Do not say that a presumption applies. |
| What the lawyer must review | The lawyer decides whether section 146 or section 147 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) can be relied on, or the local equivalent. Section 146 presumes the asserted outcome if it is reasonably open to find that the device or process, properly used, ordinarily produces that outcome, unless evidence raises a doubt. Section 147 presumes the outcome for a business record produced by a device or process used for the business, and subsection (3) takes out documents produced for or in connection with a proceeding, or for an investigation relating or leading to a criminal proceeding. In Queensland the route is section 95 of the Evidence Act 1977, which is a different provision. |
| 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 papers the lawyer supplies, set out in a table the device or process that is said to have produced the document, the outcome the tendering party asserts, whether the document is said to be a business record, and whether it was produced for a proceeding or an investigation. Do not say that a presumption applies.
- What the lawyer does: The lawyer decides whether section 146 or section 147 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) can be relied on, or the local equivalent. Section 146 presumes the asserted outcome if it is reasonably open to find that the device or process, properly used, ordinarily produces that outcome, unless evidence raises a doubt. Section 147 presumes the outcome for a business record produced by a device or process used for the business, and subsection (3) takes out documents produced for or in connection with a proceeding, or for an investigation relating or leading to a criminal proceeding. In Queensland the route is section 95 of the Evidence Act 1977, which is a different provision.
- 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. Check the asserted outcome against the document, not against a description in a letter.
2. For a Commonwealth business-record presumption, confirm the document was not produced for a proceeding or for an investigation relating or leading to a criminal proceeding.
3. In Queensland, do not cite sections 146 and 147. Use section 95, and do not draft the responsible-person certificate.
4. Leave the local Evidence Act of any other forum for the lawyer to open. This task does not state the Western Australian or South Australian rule.

## 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 146, evidence produced by processes, machines and other devices](https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ea199580/s146.html) (checked 2026-10-22)
- [Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) s 147, documents produced by processes or devices in the course of business](https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ea199580/s147.html) (checked 2026-10-22)
- [Evidence Act 1977 (Qld) s 95, statements in documents or things produced by processes or devices](https://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/qld/consol_act/ea197780/s95.html) (checked 2026-10-22)

## Jurisdiction versions

| Jurisdiction | Level |
| --- | --- |
| [United States](https://ailawframework.com/obligations/incoming-evidence-deepfakes-and-synthetic-documents/test-whether-a-device-or-process-presumption-is-available-for-an-electro/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.*