---
title: "Compile the hearing bundle, chronology and agreed-facts draft"
url: "https://ailawframework.com/practice/arbitration-and-alternative-dispute-resolution/compile-the-hearing-bundle-chronology-and-agreed-facts-draft"
type: "task"
site: "AI Law Framework"
id: "A6-T1-R8"
practice_area: "Arbitration & Alternative Dispute Resolution"
tier: "yellow"
lawyer_review: "required"
last_reviewed: "2026-10-22"
---

# Compile the hearing bundle, chronology and agreed-facts draft

> From the exhibit list, draft a bundle index, a chronology and a first-cut agreed-facts statement with sources.

Canonical page: https://ailawframework.com/practice/arbitration-and-alternative-dispute-resolution/compile-the-hearing-bundle-chronology-and-agreed-facts-draft  
Last reviewed: 2026-10-22

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

## Key facts

| Fact | Value |
| --- | --- |
| Practice area | [Arbitration & Alternative Dispute Resolution](https://ailawframework.com/practice/arbitration-and-alternative-dispute-resolution.md) |
| Human involvement | Yellow: Lawyer and AI draft together |
| How AI is used | From the exhibit list, draft a bundle index, a chronology and a first-cut agreed-facts statement with sources. |
| What the lawyer must review | Agree facts only where both sides' documents support them Match the index to the final bundle |
| 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: Potential support includes preparing preliminary structure or wording and summarising source material. Confirm the tool’s capability and permitted scope.
- What the lawyer does: Set the scope, verify the evidence, resolve exceptions and approve the final output for its intended use.
- Who reviews: Responsible lawyer with competence in the matter
- Basis: Suggested checking approach based on the task guidance. Complete the assessment for the actual tool, information and jurisdiction.
- Why: The plan reflects the described work and review requirements. Policy colours are not used to determine permission or checking.

## Checks the lawyer makes

1. Confirm that the actual tool, feature and processing terms permit use of this information, including access, retention, training and disclosure conditions.
2. Verify dates, people and sequence against contemporaneous records. Preserve uncertainty and identify gaps or conflicting accounts.
3. Confirm the output against the client’s instructions and the complete relevant source material, including omissions or contradictions.
4. Resolve exceptions and record the responsible lawyer’s approval of the exact output and intended use.

## Notes

- Confirm the required checking with the responsible lawyer before work starts. The checking approach does not establish permission to use AI.

## Jurisdiction versions

| Jurisdiction | Level |
| --- | --- |
| [United States](https://ailawframework.com/practice/arbitration-and-alternative-dispute-resolution/compile-the-hearing-bundle-chronology-and-agreed-facts-draft/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.*