claim-chart — Claude Code skill: what it does, how to install

---
name: claim-chart
description: Build or review an element chart — a patent claim chart (infringement, invalidity, or review) or a civil element chart for any cause of action or defense — with every cell pin-cited and gap detection as the priority output. Use when the user asks for a claim chart, element chart, proof chart, infringement or invalidity contention, element-by-element mapping, or asks "what are we missing to prove [claim]".
argument-hint: '[--patent | --civil] [--infringement | --invalidity | --review] [--claim <n>] [--count <name>] [--target <slug>]'
---

# /claim-chart

1. Load `~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/litigation-legal/CLAUDE.md` → role, work-product header, decision posture, document storage.
2. If matter workspaces enabled, confirm or select the active matter; load `matter.md` (side, jurisdiction, phase, theory, pleadings).
3. Follow the workflow and reference below.
4. Mode selection:
   - `--patent` → patent claim chart. Require patent number and at least one asserted claim. Sub-modes: `--infringement`, `--invalidity`, `--review`.
   - `--civil` → civil element chart. Require the cause of action (or defense) and the side.
   - No flag → ask the user which.
5. For civil mode: consult `references/element-templates.md` in the skill directory for the baseline element list. Confirm the controlling pattern instruction or statute with the user before mapping.
6. For patent mode: parse asserted claims into elements, flag disputed terms for construction, apply any Markman order.
7. Map elements against the target (accused product / prior art / evidence corpus / chart under review). Every cell pin-cited. Apply the apostrophe-prefix neutralization before writing any cell value starting with `=`, `+`, `-`, `@`, tab, or CR.
8. Produce the gap list (civil) or needs-evidence list (patent) — the priority output.
9. Write markdown, CSV (values + `_sources` companion), and Excel or Sheets per user preference. Work-product header on every output.
10. Write to the matter's `claim-charts/` folder if a matter is active; otherwise the practice-level `claim-charts/` folder. Append a one-line entry to `history.md` if a matter is active.
11. Return a summary readout: claim(s), target(s), jurisdiction, phase, element counts by state, the gap list, file paths, and the reminder that every cell is a lead.

---

# Claim Chart

## Disclosed-document use restrictions

Before working with a set of litigation documents, ask: "Were any of these documents obtained through disclosure or discovery in legal proceedings?" If yes:

- **England & Wales (CPR 31.22):** Documents obtained through disclosure are subject to the implied undertaking — you may only use them for the purpose of the proceedings in which they were disclosed, unless the court grants permission, the disclosing party consents, or the document has been read in open court. Using them for a different matter, a different claim, or a commercial purpose without permission is a contempt.
- **US:** Protective orders and Rule 26(c) may impose similar restrictions. Check the order.
- **Other jurisdictions:** Similar restrictions commonly apply. Check the local rule.

Confirm: "This use is within the proceedings in which the documents were disclosed, or I have permission / consent, or the documents are now public." If not confirmed, flag it: "⚠️ Disclosed documents may have use restrictions. Confirm this use is permitted before proceeding."

## A CHART IS A DRAFT, NOT A FINDING OR A CONTENTION

**Put this at the top of every output. Do not drop it. Do not soften it.**

> This chart is a draft for attorney analysis and verification, not a filed contention, an MSJ brief, an opening statement, or a legal opinion. Every mapping is a lead the attorney must verify against the source. The elements listed come from pattern jury instructions, the Restatement, or the claim language as parsed — the **controlling** authority in the user's jurisdiction (CACI / NYPJI / the circuit's pattern charge / the governing statute / a Markman order) may differ and always controls. Gap detection is a starting point for discovery or a motion; it is not a conclusion about the merits.

Under-flagging a gap is a one-way door — a complaint filed without plausibility on an element, an MSJ response served without evidence for a disputed element, or a case tried without proof of damages. Over-flagging is a two-way door — the attorney clears flags in review. The default is biased toward the two-way door.

---

## Matter context

Check `## Matter workspaces` in the practice-level CLAUDE.md. If `Enabled` is `✗` (the default for in-house users), skip the rest of this paragraph — skills use practice-level context and the matter machinery is invisible. If enabled and there is no active matter, ask: "Which matter is this for? Run `/litigation-legal:matter-workspace switch <slug>` or say `practice-level`." Load the active matter's `matter.md` — especially the case theory, the pleading / complaint (for the elements actually alleged), the jurisdiction, any Markman order or stipulated constructions (patent mode), and the phase of the case. Write outputs to the matter folder at `~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/litigation-legal/matters/<matter-slug>/claim-charts/`. Never read another matter's files unless `Cross-matter context` is `on`.

---

## Load context

- `~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/litigation-legal/CLAUDE.md` → role, work-product header, decision posture, document storage, case-theory scaffolding
- Active matter's `matter.md` — claims, defenses, side, jurisdiction, phase, theory
- For civil mode: the complaint or counterclaim (for the actually-pleaded counts), any answer (for the actually-pleaded affirmative defenses), the relevant pattern jury instruction source, and the governing statute if statutory. Also the evidence corpus — deposition transcripts, declarations, produced documents, expert reports.
- For patent mode: the patent, the asserted claims, the specification, prosecution history if available, the accused-product material or prior art reference, any Markman order or stipulated constructions.

If `CLAUDE.md` has `[PLACEHOLDER]` markers, surface this bounce:

> I notice you haven't configured your practice profile yet — that's how I tailor risk calibration, landscape, and house style to your practice.
>
> **Two choices:**
> - Run `/litigation-legal:cold-start-interview` (2 minutes) to configure your profile, then I'll run this tailored to YOUR practice.
> - Say **"provisional"** and I'll run this against generic defaults — US jurisdiction, middle risk appetite, lawyer role, no playbook — and tag every output `[PROVISIONAL — configure your profile for tailored output]` so you can see what I do before committing.

### Provisional mode

If the user says "provisional," build the claim chart normally using these generic defaults: middle risk appetite, lawyer role, US jurisdiction, no practice-level playbook (work from the matter's pleadings and the elements of the claims as pleaded). Tag the reviewer note and every row of the chart with `[PROVISIONAL]`. At the end of the output, append:

> "That was a generic run against default assumptions. Run `/litigation-legal:cold-start-interview` to get output calibrated to YOUR practice — your risk calibration, your landscape, your house style. 2 minutes."

**Conflicts gate — unbypassable.** Before building a claim chart, check `~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/litigation-legal/matters/_log.yaml` for the matter slug. If the matter is not in `_log.yaml`, refuse and route:

> "I don't see [matter slug] in the matter log. Run `/litigation-legal:matter-intake` first so the conflicts check runs and the matter workspace is set up. I won't build a claim chart on a matter that hasn't been intaken — the conflicts check is the gate."

Do not proceed on an unintaken matter. Intake is what runs conflicts and writes the `_log.yaml` row this skill reads from.

---

## Mode selection

Ask at the top, before anything else:

> Which kind of chart?
>
> 1. **Patent claim chart** — element-by-element mapping of claim limitations against an accused product (`--infringement`), prior art (`--invalidity`), or another party's chart (`--review`). For patent contentions, IPR petitions / responses, FTO charts.
> 2. **Civil element chart** — elements of a cause of action (or affirmative defense) mapped against the evidence. For complaint plausibility checks, discovery planning, MSJ prep, order-of-proof outlines.

Plus intake (common to both):

- **Side.** Asserting or defending? (In civil mode this flips the burden; in patent mode it flips infringement/invalidity framing.)
- **Jurisdiction / forum.** State and court — pattern instructions vary (CACI in California, NYPJI in New York, federal circuits' pattern charges, state-specific variations). In patent mode, Patent Local Rules vary (N.D. Cal., E.D. Tex., D. Del., ITC, PTAB). Flag which controls.
- **Phase.** Pre-filing, pleadings, discovery, MSJ, trial prep, post-trial. The chart is the same; the framing of the output changes.
- **Existing chart?** If `--review`, load it.

---

# MODE 1 — Patent claim chart

## Sub-modes

- `--infringement` — claim elements vs. accused product (PLR 3-1 infringement contentions, IPR/PGR response exhibits, complaint exhibits)
- `--invalidity` — claim elements vs. prior art (PLR 3-3 invalidity contentions, IPR/PGR petition exhibits, §102/§103 defenses)
- `--review` — audit a chart someone else produced

## Additional patent-mode intake

- **Patent number and asserted claims.** Which independent, which dependent. (Don't chart unasserted claims unless asked.)
- **Priority date.** Establishes the §102 bar and the effective filing date for the AIA / pre-AIA regime.
- **Existing constructions.** Markman order, stipulated constructions, constructions proposed in briefing.

## Patent-mode workflow

### Step 1: Parse the claims

Parse asserted independent claims into numbered elements. Handle:

- **Preamble.** Note whether it's limiting — a question of claim construction (*Catalina Marketing Int'l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc.*, 289 F.3d 801 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). Flag `preamble-limiting: unresolved` unless the construction order resolves it.
- **Transitional phrase.** "Comprising" (open) / "consisting of" (closed) / "consisting essentially of" (semi-open). Affects whether additional unrecited elements defeat infringement.
- **Elements** separated by commas / semicolons, numbered `[1a]`, `[1b]`, `[1c]`. Keep numbering stable — it's the chart's spine.
- **Means-plus-function (§112(f))** — every "means for [function]" or non-structural functional term. Scope is the structure disclosed in the spec plus equivalents. Cite corresponding structure by col./line. If the spec fails to disclose structure, flag `indefinite-112f`.
- **Markush groups, Jepson claims, product-by-process, method-step order dependencies** — flag with a note on unusual construction rules.
- **Dependent claims** — reference parent; chart only the additional limitations. **Execute, don't gesture.** If asserted claims include dependents, produce the actual additional-limitation rows for each dependent in Step 4 — do not emit a note that dependents "should be charted."
- **Structural-term cognates — default to `construction-dependent`.** For each element that recites a structural noun with a common cognate in the prior art of the field, default the row's state to `literal-construction-dependent` (not `literal`) unless the spec expressly defines the term or an existing Markman order forecloses the ambiguity. These are the terms most commonly disputed at Markman — presuming a clean literal read under-flags the risk. Common cognate families to flag proactively:

  | Field | Cognate family (flag as `structural-term-cognate`) |
  |---|---|
  | Fasteners / anchors | barb / thread / projection / ridge / fin / tooth |
  | Fluidics / catheters | lumen / channel / bore / passage / conduit |
  | Mechanical housings | hub / boss / flange / collar / shoulder |
  | Fasteners / joints | socket / recess / pocket / cavity |
  | Electrical / electronic | contact / terminal / pad / lead |
  | Optical | lens / reflector / window / aperture |
  | Structural | wall / member / support / strut / rib |
  | Surfaces | surface / face / interface |

  This list is not exhaustive — if the claim recites a structural noun that could reasonably be read narrowly (pointed barb vs. any projection) or broadly (channel vs. any passage), flag `structural-term-cognate` in `_constructions` and default the row to `construction-dependent`. The attorney can demote it to `literal` after a Markman order or a definition in the spec forecloses the ambiguity.

Show the parse to the user. Confirm before mapping. A wrong parse poisons every row below it.

### Step 2: Claim construction check

Flag disputed terms:

- Coined terms or terms defined in the spec
- Terms with prosecution history (amendments, arguments, disavowals — *Phillips v. AWH Corp.*, 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005); *Festo* estoppel)
- Functional language ("configured to", "adapted to", "operable to")
- Relative terms ("substantially", "about") — definiteness risk under *Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc.*, 572 U.S. 898 (2014)
- Computer-implemented terms — Alice / §101 exposure for invalidity

For each flagged term, state the construction(s) under which the mapping works and the construction(s) under which it fails. If a Markman order exists, apply it. If briefing is underway, chart under each side's proposed construction.

### Step 3: Map

For each element, for each target:

1. **Find evidence.** Accused product: documentation, manuals, data sheets, source code, teardowns, deposition testimony, expert reports. Prior art: column/line for US patents, paragraph for published apps, page/figure for NPL. For prior art, flag whether the reference qualifies (§102(a)(1), (a)(2), (b); AIA vs. pre-AIA cutoffs). If prior-art status isn't obvious, mark `prior-art-status: needs-evidence`.
2. **Quote verbatim.** Character-for-character. No paraphrase. Cut at sentence boundaries and mark elision.
3. **Characterize the mapping.**

   | Mapping | Meaning | Where |
   |---|---|---|
   | `literal` | Claim language reads on the accused feature / prior-art disclosure | Both |
   | `literal-construction-dependent` | Literal under X; fails under Y | Both |
   | `doe` | Equivalent (function-way-result or insubstantial differences) | Infringement only |
   | `anticipation` | Every element in a single reference, arranged as claimed (*Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc.*, 545 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2008)) | Invalidity only |
   | `obviousness-combination` | Secondary reference supplies the missing element; motivation to combine required under *KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.*, 550 U.S. 398 (2007) | Invalidity only |
   | `partial` | Some of the element is present | Both |
   | `not-found` | Element not present | Both |
   | `needs-evidence` | Can't tell from available material | Both |
   | `construction-dependent` | Turns on how a disputed term is construed | Both |

4. **State per cell.** `mapped` / `mapped-doe` / `partial` / `not-found` / `needs-evidence` / `construction-dependent` / `anticipation` / `obviousness-combination`.
5. **Flag open questions.** "This maps if [X]. Need [teardown / source code / deposition / expert] to confirm."

**No silent supplement.** Thin documentation means `needs-evidence`, not extrapolation from similar products.

### Step 4: Dependent claims — execute, don't gesture

For each asserted dependent claim, produce an actual row (or set of rows) charting the additional limitation(s) against the target. The parent dependency is noted, and infringement / invalidity of the dependent requires the parent's. **Produce the rows, not a placeholder note that rows should be produced.**

If the user provided a list of asserted claims that includes dependents, the chart's output MUST contain rows for each of them. If the user gave only the independent claim and said "chart the independents for now," fine — then the output doesn't chart dependents, but it surfaces the dropped ones explicitly ("Asserted dependents [X, Y, Z] not charted in this run — request: rerun with `--include-dependents` or paste the dependent claim text"). Do not silently skip dependents.

A dependent-claim row format:

```markdown
| [#] | Element (verbatim) | Accused feature (or prior-art disclosure) | Evidence (pin-cited) | Mapping | State | Verified |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2 [add'l] | "wherein the barb extends at an angle of 15° to 30° from the body axis" | AnchorFast Mini barb angle 18° per [CM-AM-2026-03 Fig. 4 + §2.3] | [CM-AM-2026-03 §2.3] "barb angle 18° ±2°" | literal-construction-dependent | mapped | ☐ |
```

### Step 4.5: DOE supplements — execute, don't gesture

For every element charted as `literal` where the accused feature is structurally similar but not literally identical — or every element where the `literal` mapping turns on a contested construction — produce a **paired DOE candidacy row** (infringement mode). Do not footnote "DOE analysis is separate" without producing the actual DOE mapping.

A DOE candidacy row adds a one-paragraph function-way-result sketch, flags prosecution history estoppel and dedication-to-the-public risks per element, and cites the evidence that would support the equivalent. If DOE is inapplicable (the element reads literally on the accused product beyond dispute), skip. If `literal` is construction-dependent and DOE would be the attorney's fallback under the narrower construction, produce the DOE row.

Format:

```markdown
| [#-DOE] | Element | Accused feature | Function-way-result | PH estoppel? | Dedication risk? | State |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1b-DOE | "at least one barb" | three-barb opposing-face array | function: resist withdrawal; way: mechanical engagement with cancellous bone; result: anchor remains seated under tensile load. | [needs-evidence: prosecution history] | [needs-evidence: disclosed-but-unclaimed alternatives in spec] | construction-dependent |
```

As with dependents: if the skill can't produce the DOE rows for a reason (no accused-product evidence to ground function-way-result, no prosecution history available), say so explicitly and route to `needs-evidence`. Do not skip DOE silently.

### Step 5: Indirect, divided, willfulness (infringement only)

Flag, don't opine:

- **Induced (§271(b))** — *Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc.*, 575 U.S. 632 (2015); *Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S.A.*, 563 U.S. 754 (2011)
- **Contributory (§271(c))** — component especially made for infringing use
- **Divided / joint (§271(a))** — *Akamai Techs., Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc.*, 797 F.3d 1020 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc) directs/controls test
- **Willfulness** — *Halo Elecs., Inc. v. Pulse Elecs., Inc.*, 579 U.S. 93 (2016); treble damages under §284

### Step 6: Invalidity thresholds (invalidity only)

For §102: every element in a single reference. Partial across references is §103.

For §103: primary reference + secondary reference(s) + documented motivation under *KSR*. Flag explicit teaching/suggestion/motivation, market or design-need motivation, reasonable expectation of success, and **secondary considerations** (*Graham v. John Deere Co.*, 383 U.S. 1 (1966)) — commercial success, long-felt need, failure of others, industry praise, copying.

Also flag:
- **§101** — *Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l*, 573 U.S. 208 (2014); *Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc.*, 566 U.S. 66 (2012)
- **§112 ¶ 1** — written description, enablement (*Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi*, 598 U.S. 594 (2023))
- **§112 ¶ 2** — definiteness (*Nautilus*, supra)
- **§112 ¶ 6** — means-plus-function structure
- **Unenforceability** — inequitable conduct, prosecution laches, assignor/licensee estoppel (attorney-only flags)

Invalidity must be shown by clear and convincing evidence — *Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd. P'ship*, 564 U.S. 91 (2011). Prima facie in a chart is not proof at trial.

### Step 7 (review sub-mode): Audit

For each row: is the mapping supported? Is the pin cite accurate? Is the element fully accounted for? What's the strongest counter? What's the rebuttal opportunity? Output verdicts per row (`supported` / `weak` / `unsupported`) and the chart's vulnerabilities.

## Patent-mode guardrails (in addition to shared guardrails)

- **Rule 11 / Patent Local Rule.** Infringement and invalidity contentions require a reasonable inquiry and a non-frivolous basis. A chart out of this skill is a draft, not a contention.
- **Claim construction candor.** Every construction-dependent row states the construction assumed and the construction under which the mapping fails.
- **DOE candor.** A DOE mapping is not equivalent to a literal one. Flag prosecution history estoppel and dedication-to-the-public risks per element.
- **Indirect is separate.** Don't fold induced / contributory into direct-infringement rows.
- **Invalidity burden on the chart.** State the clear-and-convincing standard.

---

# MODE 2 — Civil element chart

Map the elements of a cause of action (or affirmative defense) against the evidence. The killer outputs are (a) a chart that says what evidence goes with what element and (b) a gap list that tells the attorney what's missing.

## Workflow

### Step 1: Identify the claim(s)

- What cause of action? (Or defense?) If multiple counts, chart each separately.
- Which side? Plaintiff's prima facie case, defendant's affirmative defense, defendant's challenge to plaintiff's prima facie case (MSJ mode). Read `## Side` in the practice profile for the default — `plaintiff` defaults to mapping the prima facie case (proving the elements); `defense` defaults to mapping gaps and affirmative defenses (disproving or avoiding the elements). Confirm the posture matches this matter before starting.
- Which jurisdiction? State and court. **Elements and pattern-instruction language vary by jurisdiction.** The template library is a baseline; the controlling pattern instruction or statute controls.
- Which pleading? Load the complaint / counterclaim / answer so the chart tracks the counts actually pleaded, not a generic version.

### Step 2: Load the elements

Three paths:

**(a) Template library.** Reference `references/element-templates.md` (in this skill's directory). Baseline elements for common causes of action and common affirmative defenses, with citations to the Restatement / pattern instructions and a jurisdiction caveat. Select the template that matches the pleaded count.

**(b) Custom.** User defines elements, or pastes a jury instruction / statute / a count from the complaint to parse. Parse into numbered elements.

**(c) Affirmative defenses.** Also support mapping defenses — statute of limitations, laches, estoppel, waiver, unclean hands, release, accord and satisfaction, failure to mitigate, comparative fault, contributory negligence, assumption of risk, etc. Defenses have their own elements the defendant must prove (or, for some, the plaintiff must negate once raised).

**Jurisdiction-specific formulations — surface proactively.** If the practice profile's `## Company profile → Core jurisdictions` or the active matter's `matter.md` names **Delaware, New York, or California** (the three most-common commercial fora), surface the state-specific formulation proactively alongside the baseline — do not ask "does your jurisdiction add/drop/reword" first. The user shouldn't have to teach the skill the local rule; the skill should offer it and let the user choose.

Divergences to surface without being asked (non-exhaustive — add to this list as patterns recur):

| Cause of action / defense | Baseline (Restatement / pattern) | Jurisdiction-specific formulation |
|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | 4 elements (contract, performance, breach, damages; CACI 303) | **DE:** 3 elements — contractual obligation, breach, damages (causation folded into breach) per *VLIW Tech., LLC v. Hewlett-Packard Co.*, 840 A.2d 606 (Del. 2003). **DE adds a 5th element** — no adequate remedy at law — when the claim seeks specific performance. |
| Breach of contract — goods | Common-law breach elements | **If goods + U.C.C. Article 2 jurisdiction (all 50 states except LA):** load U.C.C. breach elements (conforming tender, acceptance / rejection / revocation, cure, cover, seller's remedies). Present both; let user pick. |
| Breach of contract — multi-lot goods / installment contract | Common-law breach or U.C.C. § 2-711 (single-delivery breach framework) | **Installment contracts under U.C.C. § 2-612** — "substantial impairment of the value of the installment" replaces the perfect-tender rule; aggregate breach requires "substantial impairment of the value of the whole contract." If the contract calls for goods to be delivered in separate lots (multiple shipments, deliveries), default to § 2-612 framing — it is the governing regime and the analysis is materially different from single-delivery breach. Flag for signer: "This is drafted as an installment contract under § 2-612 — confirm that characterization matches the contract's delivery structure." |
| Negligence | 4 elements (duty, breach, causation, damages; Restatement (Second) Torts § 281) | **CA:** follow CACI No. 400 formulation (negligence per se per CACI 418 when applicable). **NY:** PJI 2:10 formulation — slightly different language on proximate cause. |
| Negligent misrepresentation | Restatement (Second) Torts § 552 — justifiable reliance, pecuniary loss | **NY:** requires **contemporaneous privity** or a relationship "so close as to approach that of privity" per *Credit Alliance Corp. v. Arthur Andersen & Co.*, 65 N.Y.2d 536 (1985). |
| Fraud | 9 elements (often condensed to 5 — representation, materiality, knowledge of falsity, intent to induce, justifiable reliance, damages) | **DE:** 5 elements per *Stephenson v. Capano Dev.*, 462 A.2d 1069 (Del. 1983). **CA:** CACI 1900 formulation — 5 elements with reliance being "justifiable." **NY:** requires pleading with particularity under CPLR 3016(b), and scienter is a distinct element. |
| Breach of fiduciary duty | Restatement / common law — fiduciary duty, breach, damages | **DE:** the most-developed body of fiduciary-duty law (*Aronson v. Lewis*, *Cede & Co. v. Technicolor*, *In re Trados*) — default to the Delaware formulation for any DE-entity matter regardless of forum. |

When a jurisdiction-specific formulation differs materially from the baseline, the chart opens with a one-line callout:

> **Jurisdiction note:** You told me this is a [DE/NY/CA] matter. Here's how [jurisdiction]'s formulation differs from the baseline: [divergence]. The chart below uses the [jurisdiction] formulation. If that's wrong, say so and I'll reload.

Confirm the element list with the user before mapping. If the user's jurisdiction isn't DE/NY/CA, ask: "Does your jurisdiction's pattern instruction add / drop / reword any of these?" If yes, use their version.

### Step 3: Map

For each element:

- **Evidence supporting** — what proves this element? Cite the source with a pin cite.
  - Deposition testimony — `[Doe Dep. 42:15–43:7]`
  - Declaration — `[Smith Decl. ¶ 12]`
  - Produced document — `[DEF00012345 at 3]`
  - Admission — `[Def.'s Resp. to RFA No. 5]`
  - Exhibit — `[Trial Ex. 14 at 2]`
  - Expert report — `[Jones Expert Rep. at 18]`
  - Discovery response — `[Pl.'s Resp. to Interrog. No. 8]`
  - Statute / case — for purely legal elements
- **Verbatim quote** where the evidence is testimonial or documentary. No paraphrase.
- **Evidence contradicting** — what cuts the other way? Cite it. This is the row's vulnerability.
- **Strength** — `strong` / `moderate` / `weak` / `none`. Keep it simple. Over-calibrated strength scores are noise; `weak` and `none` are the rows that matter.
- **State per cell** — `supported` / `partial` / `disputed` / `gap` / `needs-discovery`.

### Step 4: Gap detection — the killer output

After mapping, produce a gap list. This is the point of the chart.

> **Elements with thin or no evidence:** [list]
>
> - If asserting (plaintiff): these defeat your complaint's plausibility (Iqbal/Twombly), your MSJ opposition, or your case at trial. Close them before the next motion.
> - If defending: these are your MSJ targets and your directed-verdict motion. The plaintiff has to prove each element; a gap is a defense.
> - If pre-discovery: these are your discovery priorities — the depositions, document requests, and interrogatories that turn a gap into `supported` or confirm `none`.

Gap detection is not a conclusion about the merits. It's a map of where the case is light.

### Step 5: Phase-aware framing

Ask the phase. Same chart; different framing on the output:

- **Pre-filing / pleadings.** Does the complaint allege each element with plausibility (*Ashcroft v. Iqbal*, 556 U.S. 662 (2009); *Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly*, 550 U.S. 544 (2007))? Any element pleaded on information and belief without factual support is a 12(b)(6) target.
- **Discovery.** For each `gap` or `needs-discovery` element, what discovery is needed? Which witnesses, which document custodians, which interrogatories, which RFAs.
- **MSJ.** For each element, is there a genuine dispute of material fact? A `supported` cell for the movant with no contradicting evidence is summary-judgment ammunition; a `disputed` cell is MSJ-defeating.
- **Trial.** Order of proof. Which witness proves element 1, which exhibit proves element 2, who authenticates, what's the foundation. The chart becomes the trial outline.

### Step 6 (review sub-mode): Audit

For an opposing party's MSJ brief, a motion to dismiss, or outside counsel's draft: for each element, does their cited evidence actually prove it? Where is their chart thin? What's your strongest counter?

## Civil-mode guardrails (in addition to shared guardrails)

- **Jurisdiction...