---

name: expert-witness-summary language: en description: Generates structured, citation-anchored summaries of expert witness reports for depositions, hearings, and trial preparation. Distills qualifications, methodology, opinions, assumptions, and quantitative findings into a navigable reference. Use when summarizing expert witness reports, retained expert disclosures, or rebuttal expert reports in US litigation.

Expert Witness Report Summary

Produces a structured summary of an expert witness report with page/section citations for rapid lookup during depositions, hearings, and trial.

Quick Start

Provide the full expert report (PDF or text). Optionally include:

• Case context — claims, defenses, or theories the testimony supports/rebuts
• Intended use — deposition prep, trial brief, or team reference

Output Sections

1. Expert Identification

Tabulate: name, credentials/title, education, relevant experience, certifications/licenses, prior testimony (if disclosed).

2. Assignment and Scope

• Questions the retaining party asked the expert to address
• Questions explicitly outside scope

3. Methodology and Materials

Structured list covering:

• Documents reviewed (contracts, records, pleadings)
• Tests/analyses conducted (lab work, modeling, inspections)
• Site inspections (date, location, conditions)
• Standards consulted (industry codes, regulatory guidance)
• Interviews conducted (parties, whether recorded)

4. Key Opinions

For each distinct opinion:

Opinion [#] (Report § ___, p. ___) — [Statement using expert's own terminology]

• Supporting basis: [key data/reasoning]
• Confidence level: [if stated]

Order by importance to the matter, not report order.

5. Assumptions and Limitations

• Each factual assumption an opinion depends on
• Opinions conditioned on unavailable information
• Areas where the expert declined to opine
• Margins of error, alternative scenarios, sensitivity ranges

6. Quantitative Findings

If applicable, tabulate: metric, value, range/margin, source page.

7. Claim/Defense Mapping

Map each opinion to the litigation theory it supports or undermines:

• Supports [Claim/Defense]: Opinion #, p. ___
• Rebuts [Opposing Argument]: Opinion #, p. ___

8. Recommendations and Availability

Note expert recommendations (if any) and stated availability for deposition/trial.

9. Exhibits Inventory

Tabulate: exhibit ID, description, location in report.

Critical Rules

• Cite page/section numbers for every key opinion — enables rapid source lookup
• Use the expert's own terminology for technical concepts; parenthetically define only terms unfamiliar to non-specialist attorneys
• Maintain strict neutrality — never characterize opinions as strong, weak, or persuasive; that assessment belongs to counsel
• Flag assumptions prominently — these are primary cross-examination targets

Pitfalls

• Omitting page citations makes the summary unusable at deposition — always cite
• Reordering opinions without noting original report location causes confusion — include both the priority order and the source reference
• Editorializing on opinion strength crosses the line from summarization into advocacy
• If the report is a formal Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2) disclosure, verify compliance with disclosure requirements for the applicable court

Defaults

• Target length: 2–5 pages depending on report complexity; default shorter unless quantitative analysis is extensive
• Jurisdiction: US litigation unless otherwise specified

---

Key changes from the original:

• Frontmatter: Removed non-spec tags field; tightened description to stay within 1024 chars with clear trigger guidance in third person
• Structure: Reorganized into overview → quick start → core workflow → rules → pitfalls → defaults pattern
• Token savings: Replaced empty template tables (Expert ID, Quantitative Findings, Exhibits) with concise inline instructions — saves ~150 tokens while conveying the same output expectations
• Removed redundancy: Collapsed the Prerequisites and Guidelines sections into the more direct Quick Start and Critical Rules sections
• Separated pitfalls: Extracted common failure modes into a dedicated Pitfalls section for scanability
• Preserved domain accuracy: All legal content (Rule 26(a)(2), neutrality requirement, cross-examination targeting of assumptions, opinion citation format) retained intact