Organize evidence
Keep the PDFs and scans for a matter together, instead of across folders and inboxes.
Evidence intelligence for complex investigations
FROM EVIDENCE TO FACT.
Turn complex evidence into clearer intelligence.
Organize documentary evidence, build timelines, examine potential gaps and inconsistencies, and trace AI-assisted observations back to their sources.
- Work with your PDFs
- Identify gaps and inconsistencies
- Trace to the source page
Initial private beta: selected legal teams and PDF documents, including scanned paperwork. Not generally available.
Northline v. Hale
Conceptual
Deposition_notes.pdf
Page 14 of 86
- 12
- 13
- Current page 14
- 15
Q When did the meeting occur?
Original passageA The meeting was on March 3rd.
Q And who was present?
AI-assisted observation
Needs human review
Potential date inconsistency
Not an established fact. A person has to compare the two pages.
3 March
Deposition notes, p.14
“The meeting was on March 3rd.”
12 March
Intake summary, p.2
“Meeting occurred on March 12.”
Sources. Deposition_notes.pdf, page 14 · Intake_summary.pdf, page 2
Identified issues
- Date inconsistency. Mar 3 vs. Mar 12.
- Potential gap. Missing document reference. Requires review, and is not proof a record is missing.
- Needs human review. AI-assisted observation.
Evidence timeline
Feb 28
Initial contact
Mar 3
Meeting
notes p.14
Mar 12
Intake summary
p.2
Apr 4
Follow-up
email p.8
Matter documents
Search documents
Pleadings.pdf
42 pages
Selected. Deposition_notes.pdf
86 pages
Intake_summary.pdf
18 pages
Correspondence.pdf
12 pages
Medical_records.pdf
54 pages
Deposition_notes.pdf
Page 14 of 86
- 12
- 13
- Current page 14
- 15
Q When did the meeting occur?
Original passageA The meeting was on March 3rd.
Q And who was present?
AI-assisted observation
Needs human review
Potential date inconsistency
Not an established fact. A person has to compare the two pages.
3 March
Deposition notes, p.14
“The meeting was on March 3rd.”
12 March
Intake summary, p.2
“Meeting occurred on March 12.”
Sources. Deposition_notes.pdf, page 14 · Intake_summary.pdf, page 2
Identified issues
- Date inconsistency. Mar 3 vs. Mar 12.
- Potential gap. Missing document reference. Requires review, and is not proof a record is missing.
- Needs human review. AI-assisted observation.
Evidence timeline
Feb 28
Initial contact
Mar 3
Meeting
notes p.14
Mar 12
Intake summary
p.2
Apr 4
Follow-up
email p.8
A smarter way to review complex evidence.
EvidenceFact is being built to help professional teams work through large PDF sets: organize the record, notice a possible inconsistency, and keep every observation tied to its source.
Build timelines
Place events in order and keep the page that mentions each one beside the date.
Identify potential gaps and inconsistencies
Show a possible difference or gap for a person to examine. It is not a conclusion.
Trace findings to their sources
An AI-assisted observation stays attached to the document and page a reviewer can open.
Designed for the realities of complex records.
Long PDFs, shifting dates, and sources that never sit together make review slow. The first private beta is a PDF workflow for selected legal teams. Other industries are not eligible yet.
Focused on PDFs
The initial beta supports PDF documents and scanned paperwork.
Human review
AI-assisted notes are not findings. A person decides what the record supports.
Legal teams first
The private beta is for selected legal teams. Other professions can ask about later availability.
Organize → Reconstruct → Examine → Verify
From the PDF to a question a person can check.
01 Organize
Bring the PDFs together
Add the documents and scans that belong to the matter.
02 Reconstruct
Put events in order
Read the dates those pages describe as one chronology.
03 Examine
Look at the difference
A possible inconsistency or gap stays next to the pages involved.
04 Verify
A person decides
Open the cited page. The software does not decide what is fact.
Request private beta access if your legal team reviews long PDF sets.
Built for organizations that live in the documents.
The same review problem appears in more than one profession. The first private beta does not cover every one of them.
Private beta priority
Law firms and litigation teams
Compare a deposition, a pleading, and a summary without losing the page behind each point.
Request Private Beta AccessFuture interest
Insurance and claims organizations
Organize claim documents and review an incident chronology when two records do not use the same date.
Contact Us About Future AvailabilityFuture interest
Corporate investigations and compliance
Keep an internal investigation’s documents and the sequence of events together for the people assigned to it.
Contact Us About Future AvailabilityFuture interest
Government and public sector
Review a large documentary set and reconstruct what happened, with each event tied to a source page.
Contact Us About Future AvailabilitySelected legal teams can request private beta access. Insurance, corporate, and public-sector teams are not in this beta. They can contact us about future availability. No carrier integration, government contract, or compliance certification is claimed.
A person still decides what is fact.
Observations stay sourced
An AI-assisted note is meant to point back to the PDF it came from. It can be wrong.
Review stays human
The platform does not replace professional judgment, give legal advice, or decide admissibility.
This site holds no evidence
The marketing website does not accept uploads and does not claim a certification or audit.
See a clearer way to review complex evidence.
Selected legal teams can apply to evaluate a PDF workflow for organizing evidence and tracing an observation to its page. The timeline and inconsistency views on this site are concepts, not screens the beta currently promises to include.
Other industries can contact us about future availability.
What to expect
- 1You receive a reference. No account is created.
- 2A person reviews the application. Access is not guaranteed.
- 3Do not include client names, claim numbers, or evidence.