See the cross-exam before opposing counsel does. BETA
Review a drafted opinion for unsupported jumps, missing exam findings, thin causation links, and overreach, before it ever leaves the office.
Unsupported jumps, flagged before they're read aloud.
Where a conclusion in the draft moves faster than the cited findings support it, the simulator flags the jump and points to the specific finding or citation that would need to close the gap.
Missing exam findings surfaced, not assumed present.
If the opinion references an exam finding that isn't documented anywhere in the draft or record, that gap is surfaced directly rather than silently assumed to exist.
Overreach patterns get the same scrutiny a cross-exam would.
Statements that go beyond the exam's scope, or beyond what the record supports, are flagged the way a deposing attorney would target them, so the examiner can tighten the language before it's tested in the room.
Flags the weak points, never rewrites the opinion.
The Opinion Attack Simulator flags unsupported jumps, missing exam findings, thin causation links, and overreach. It does not rewrite the opinion's substance, and it does not make the judgment call the examiner needs to make.
Every flag points to a specific section and the reason it was raised, leaving the decision about how to address it entirely with the examiner. The draft's conclusions remain the examiner's own work.
From a finished draft to a stress-tested one.
Three steps, before the opinion ever goes out.
The drafted opinion and the underlying exam record are loaded together for comparison.
Unsupported jumps, missing findings, thin causation links, and overreach are flagged against the record.
The examiner reviews each flag and decides what, if anything, to tighten before the opinion is finalized.
Built for anyone whose opinion gets tested in the room.
Stress-test the draft before the deposition does.
Examiners see the same weak points a deposing attorney would target, ahead of time.
For IME orgsDefense counsel gets a tighter, better-supported opinion to work with before deposition.
For law firmsQuality checks on high-value files before an opinion is issued.
For TPAsFrequently asked questions.
It reviews a drafted IME opinion for unsupported jumps, missing exam findings, thin causation links, and overreach, applying the same scrutiny a deposing attorney would.
No. It flags gaps and vulnerabilities only. It does not rewrite the opinion's substance or judgment; the examiner decides how to respond to each flag.
Yes, in beta. The Opinion Attack Simulator is live and testable now; we're refining it hands-on with early customers, and if your use case is a good fit we'll work with you directly.
A conclusion in the draft that moves faster than the findings cited for it. The simulator flags the jump and points to the section that would need to close the gap.
No. It's a rehearsal tool that surfaces likely attack points before a human review, not a substitute for a colleague's or supervisor's own read of the opinion.
Related to Opinion Attack Simulator.
Drafts topic-organized deposition question outlines from the digest and record, every question cited to the page it's built on.
Read moreBuilds likely cross-examination paths from inconsistencies, gaps, priors, and imaging ambiguity in the record, a rehearsal tool, not a script.
Read moreLinks causation statements in a drafted opinion to matched peer-reviewed literature, always shown apart from the record's own facts.
Read moreStress-test the opinion before opposing counsel gets the chance.
Join the beta and run the simulator on a drafted opinion of your own, or book a demo to see the flags in action. Handled under our BAA; never used to train a model.