---
title: "Assemble the contextual-truth elements from the publication"
url: "https://ailawframework.com/practice/defamation-and-media-law/assemble-the-contextual-truth-elements-from-the-publication"
type: "task"
site: "AI Law Framework"
id: "A33-PE20261022-17"
practice_area: "Defamation & Media Law"
tier: "yellow"
lawyer_review: "required"
last_reviewed: "2026-10-22"
---

# Assemble the contextual-truth elements from the publication

> From the publication and the imputations the lawyer marks, list the imputations put forward as contextual imputations and the imputations of which the plaintiff complains that are not contextual imputations.…

Canonical page: https://ailawframework.com/practice/defamation-and-media-law/assemble-the-contextual-truth-elements-from-the-publication  
Last reviewed: 2026-10-22

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

## Key facts

| Fact | Value |
| --- | --- |
| Practice area | [Defamation & Media Law](https://ailawframework.com/practice/defamation-and-media-law.md) |
| Human involvement | Yellow: Lawyer and AI draft together |
| How AI is used | From the publication and the imputations the lawyer marks, list the imputations put forward as contextual imputations and the imputations of which the plaintiff complains that are not contextual imputations. Record the facts the file gives for substantial truth, and any fact the file gives about whether the plaintiff's other imputations further harm the plaintiff's reputation because of that truth. Do not decide that the defence is established. |
| What the lawyer must review | The lawyer decides which imputations are contextual imputations, whether they are substantially true, and whether the plaintiff's other imputations do further harm. The definition of substantially true is applied by the lawyer and is not restated. |
| 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 publication and the imputations the lawyer marks, list the imputations put forward as contextual imputations and the imputations of which the plaintiff complains that are not contextual imputations. Record the facts the file gives for substantial truth, and any fact the file gives about whether the plaintiff's other imputations further harm the plaintiff's reputation because of that truth. Do not decide that the defence is established.
- What the lawyer does: The lawyer decides which imputations are contextual imputations, whether they are substantially true, and whether the plaintiff's other imputations do further harm. The definition of substantially true is applied by the lawyer and is not restated.
- 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. Separate contextual imputations from the plaintiff's other imputations.
2. Record that a contextual imputation may be one of which the plaintiff complains.
3. Leave substantial truth, and whether the other imputations do further harm, to the lawyer.

## 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

- [Defamation Act 2005 (NSW) s 26, defence of contextual truth](https://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/da200599/s26.html) (checked 2026-10-22)

## Jurisdiction versions

| Jurisdiction | Level |
| --- | --- |
| [United States](https://ailawframework.com/practice/defamation-and-media-law/assemble-the-contextual-truth-elements-from-the-publication/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.*