---
title: "Draft a s 66B applicant-replacement or authorisation-challenge pack"
url: "https://ailawframework.com/practice/native-title-and-first-nations-legal-work/draft-an-applicant-replacement-or-authorisation-challenge-pack/commonwealth"
type: "task_jurisdiction_version"
site: "AI Law Framework"
id: "A36-T1-R8-CTH"
practice_area: "Native Title & First Nations Legal Work"
tier: "red"
lawyer_review: "required"
jurisdictions: ["CTH"]
last_reviewed: "2026-10-02"
---

# Draft a s 66B applicant-replacement or authorisation-challenge pack

> From the meeting papers and the claim file, build the checklist of s 66B NTA requirements and tabulate each one against the document the lawyer has marked for it.…

Canonical page: https://ailawframework.com/practice/native-title-and-first-nations-legal-work/draft-an-applicant-replacement-or-authorisation-challenge-pack/commonwealth  
Last reviewed: 2026-10-02

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

## Key facts

| Fact | Value |
| --- | --- |
| Practice area | [Native Title & First Nations Legal Work](https://ailawframework.com/practice/native-title-and-first-nations-legal-work.md) |
| Human involvement | Red: Lawyer writes; AI may check, clarify or collect data |
| How AI is used | From the meeting papers and the claim file, build the checklist of s 66B NTA requirements and tabulate each one against the document the lawyer has marked for it. The tool writes no part of the application or the affidavits: no draft, no first draft, no scaffold, no chronology offered as evidence, no suggested paragraphs. Against the pack the lawyer has written, list every assertion with no source on the file, and check it against the court’s form requirements. |
| What the lawyer must review | Check authorisation against this group's own decision-making process Verify every fact about meetings and replacement applicants Check transcripts, resolutions and community records |
| Written for | Commonwealth |
| Applies to | [Draft an applicant-replacement or authorisation-challenge pack](https://ailawframework.com/practice/native-title-and-first-nations-legal-work/draft-an-applicant-replacement-or-authorisation-challenge-pack.md) |

## Checking plan

**Lawyer-led judgement**

The lawyer makes the substantive assessment. Any permitted AI assistance remains supporting work with its own checks.

- What the AI does: Potential support includes organising research leads and preparing preliminary structure or wording. 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.
- Restriction: The lawyer makes the substantive assessment. Any permitted AI assistance remains supporting work with its own checks.

## Checks the lawyer makes

1. Open each relied-on authority independently. Confirm its existence, current status, proposition and any quotation or pinpoint reference.
2. Review the original source set for relevant material absent from the output, including contrary evidence, qualifications and unresolved gaps.
3. Confirm the appropriate instructions, permissions and cultural context with the relevant people before using information or communicating the result.
4. Confirm the output against the client’s instructions and the complete relevant source material, including omissions or contradictions.
5. 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.

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