---
title: "Build an issue-to-document evidence table"
url: "https://ailawframework.com/practice/commercial-litigation-and-dispute-resolution/build-an-issue-to-document-evidence-table"
type: "task"
site: "AI Law Framework"
id: "A5-P20260916-1"
practice_area: "Commercial Litigation & Dispute Resolution"
tier: "yellow"
lawyer_review: "required"
last_reviewed: "2026-09-23"
---

# Build an issue-to-document evidence table

> Organise permitted documents against issues defined by the lawyer, retaining exact page or paragraph references and competing material.

Canonical page: https://ailawframework.com/practice/commercial-litigation-and-dispute-resolution/build-an-issue-to-document-evidence-table  
Last reviewed: 2026-09-23

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

## Key facts

| Fact | Value |
| --- | --- |
| Practice area | [Commercial Litigation & Dispute Resolution](https://ailawframework.com/practice/commercial-litigation-and-dispute-resolution.md) |
| Human involvement | Yellow: Lawyer and AI draft together |
| How AI is used | Organise permitted documents against issues defined by the lawyer, retaining exact page or paragraph references and competing material. |
| What the lawyer must review | Check the complete relevant record Decide what the evidence supports |
| Written for / versions | — |

## Checking plan

**Verify against sources**

The lawyer checks the complete relevant record and decides what the evidence supports.

- What the AI does: Organise permitted documents against issues defined by the lawyer, retaining exact page or paragraph references and competing material.
- What the lawyer does: Make the legal assessment, check the source material and authorise the output for its intended use.
- Who reviews: Lawyer competent in this practice area
- 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 the consequence of an error and the amount of independent review the described output needs.
- Written for: AU

## Checks the lawyer makes

1. Set the issues from the current pleadings or instructions and confirm the material may be processed in the selected tool.
2. Open each relied-on source and verify the quotation, author, date, page and surrounding context.
3. Check for documents that contradict the suggested position and distinguish an allegation, inference and established fact.
4. Have the lawyer resolve gaps and admissibility questions before using the table in advice or submissions.

## Notes

- These are suggested working checks. The cited court, tribunal or scheme requirements apply only within their stated scope.

## Practical guide

Jurisdiction: Australian litigation; NSW Supreme Court data restrictions apply to the cited example

**Deliverable**: An issue table with supporting and contrary documents.

**Inputs**

- Current pleadings or issues list
- Permitted document set
- Stable document and page identifiers

**Example**: Illustrative example: A breach issue links the signed contract, two variation emails and a contrary meeting note. The table does not label the breach proved.

**Stop and escalate when**

- Restricted discovery or subpoena material lacks an authorised processing arrangement.
- A material assertion has no supporting passage.

Checked 2026-09-16.

## Sources

- [Supreme Court of NSW: SC Gen 23, amended 28 January 2025](https://supremecourt.nsw.gov.au/documents/Practice-and-Procedure/Practice-Notes/general/current/PN_SC_Gen_23.pdf) (checked 2026-09-16)
- [Supreme Court of Victoria: SC GEN 25, 14 May 2026](https://www.supremecourt.vic.gov.au/areas/legal-resources/practice-notes/sc-gen-25-the-use-of-artificial-intelligence-by-court-users) (checked 2026-09-16)

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