---
title: "Draft non-evidentiary submissions for the NSW PIC, QIRC, WorkSafe Appeals or SACAT"
url: "https://ailawframework.com/practice/personal-injury-and-compensation/draft-submissions-for-the-compensation-commission-or-tribunal/australia"
type: "task_jurisdiction_version"
site: "AI Law Framework"
id: "A21-T1-R9-AU"
practice_area: "Personal Injury & Compensation (workers compensation, CTP/TAC, medical negligence)"
tier: "red"
lawyer_review: "required"
jurisdictions: ["AU"]
last_reviewed: "2026-09-23"
---

# Draft non-evidentiary submissions for the NSW PIC, QIRC, WorkSafe Appeals or SACAT

> Draft a structural outline and non-evidentiary procedural sections from the approved issues table. NSW PIC from 1 January 2026: no evidentiary analysis or fact-based argument (PD PIC 13).

Canonical page: https://ailawframework.com/practice/personal-injury-and-compensation/draft-submissions-for-the-compensation-commission-or-tribunal/australia  
Last reviewed: 2026-09-23

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

## Key facts

| Fact | Value |
| --- | --- |
| Practice area | [Personal Injury & Compensation (workers compensation, CTP/TAC, medical negligence)](https://ailawframework.com/practice/personal-injury-and-compensation.md) |
| Human involvement | Red: Lawyer writes; AI may check, clarify or collect data |
| How AI is used | Draft a structural outline and non-evidentiary procedural sections from the approved issues table. NSW PIC from 1 January 2026: no evidentiary analysis or fact-based argument (PD PIC 13). |
| What the lawyer must review | Disclose GenAI use or certify non-use in NSW PIC filings (Rules 33A and 33B, from 1 January 2026) Keep AI content out of evidentiary material, affidavits, statements and expert reports (PD PIC 13) Remember non-disclosure may breach ASCR r 19 Do not use AI tools that record or transcribe PIC proceedings, including note-taking bots (Rule 133B) Verify every citation (see Carrington v TAFE Queensland [2025] QIRC 340; Goodchild v State of Queensland [2025] QIRC 46) Name the responsible individual under Qld Supreme Court PD 5 of 2025 (24 September 2025) Do the same under Qld District Court PD 12 of 2025 |
| Written for | Australia |
| Applies to | [Draft submissions for the compensation commission or tribunal](https://ailawframework.com/practice/personal-injury-and-compensation/draft-submissions-for-the-compensation-commission-or-tribunal.md) |

## 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. 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. Open each relied-on authority independently. Confirm its existence, current status, proposition and any quotation or pinpoint reference.
2. Confirm each factual assertion with the witness and original record. Preserve the witness’s own knowledge and words, and check the court’s rules for this document.
3. Check the current court or regulator requirements, prescribed form and attachments for the intended document and filing.
4. Check the specialist’s assumptions, qualifications and limits. Obtain the relevant expert or specialist review before relying on a technical conclusion.
5. Confirm the output against the client’s instructions and the complete relevant source material, including omissions or contradictions.
6. 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.*