Full summary
The case narrative as the evidence supports it, graded finding by finding.
Published reports
Findings your legal team can investigate inside.
Our investigators publish a private interactive findings report for your team and authorized co-counsel. Follow a finding to its facts, documents and source passages; explore the cast and chronology; bring citations into your next brief.
Investigation reportsA report built
A report built
for your review.
Bring your investigation into one readable document: the executive summary, key findings, and the records that explain them. Built for attorneys and their legal teams.
- Start with the findings. A summary and key-finding cards give the reader a way into the report.
- Keep the detail close. An evidence index, contradiction register, and issue matrix sit alongside the narrative.
- Work with your team. Explore the published private report with your authorized team and co-counsel, or print and save a PDF. No seat licenses.
Explore a sample report
Illustrative report using fictional records. This is a format demonstration, not output from a completed investigation.
Reed v. Northstar Transport · Trucking collision
Evidence investigation report
01 · Executive summary
This example illustrates a supported finding and an unresolved question. The maintenance entry records a warning; it does not establish brake performance at impact or causation.
Key finding
Maintenance warning recorded
Read the maintenance entry alongside the dispatch and incident records.
Inspect the cited record · Exhibit S-1 →Source tracingFollow the finding.
Follow the finding.
Check the record.
Key-finding links take the reader into report sections and exhibits. The evidence index pairs quoted records with their factual significance.
A source reference gives your team a place to verify the reasoning. Compare the cited passage with the explanation, and keep competing accounts or missing evidence in view.
Illustrative example · fictional source passage
02 · Key records index
Exhibit S-1
01
Finding
Maintenance warning recorded
02
Supporting fact
The maintenance entry records a warning at 06:40. The dispatch time is listed separately in fictional Exhibit S-2.
03
Referenced record
Exhibit S-1 · Maintenance log
May 12, 2026 · page 4
04
Quoted passage
06:40, Unit 27: brake warning reported. Inspection pending.
Cast of charactersKnow who is who.
Know who is who.
See how they connect.
Keep the people, roles, and affiliations in the record together, so a name has context when it appears in a finding.
The report's relationship network brings documented connections into view, alongside personnel dossiers and witness fact sheets. Trace people, organizations, and records, then inspect the evidence behind a connection.
Illustrative example · fictional people and records. Graph illustration is static.
05 · People
People & relationships
Alex Stone
Driver · Northstar TransportAssigned to Unit 27 in the fictional dispatch record.
Casey Park
Dispatcher · Northstar TransportNamed as dispatcher in the fictional carrier records.
Factual chronologiesPut the events
Put the events
in order.
A master chronology organizes events by date or time range, with factual descriptions and source references.
Follow the sequence across records. See where accounts align, where they conflict, and what is still missing before deciding what the timeline means.
06 · Chronology
Illustrative chronology · fictional eventsMaster factual chronology
Maintenance warning recorded
Unit 27 has a brake warning; inspection is pending.
Exhibit S-1 · Maintenance log p.4 →Vehicle dispatched
Alex Stone is assigned to Unit 27.
Exhibit S-2 · Dispatch recordCollision reported
The incident report records the collision involving Unit 27.
Exhibit S-3 · Incident report
What you get
Report sections for your investigation.
Whole-team access, findings walkthrough and brief-ready exports, included in the engagement.
Cast of characters
The people, places, and things that matter, with the evidence behind each one.
Chronology of events
A sourced timeline of the accident and everything after. Entries trace to their records.
Missing evidence
What the record does not establish, and where the gaps are.
Threads to pull
The leads your evidence suggests, ranked to help focus the next investigation.
File intelligence
What is in your corpus: file types, hours of video, categorization, and duplicates flagged.
Source verification
Source references connect findings and entities to supporting records so your team can verify the passage and its significance.
Knowledge graph
The visual web of connections across the corpus: people, organizations, events, and the records behind them.
Investigation workflow
Beyond a chat answer.
Chat workflows vary by tool and configuration. These are the review steps to ask about when evaluating an evidence investigation.
Reconciliation
Consensus checks identify disagreements between extractions, then reconcile findings across the supplied corpus.
When comparing tools: Check how the workflow identifies conflicting extractions across separate records.
Adversarial review
A dedicated review stage tests competing explanations and counterevidence.
When comparing tools: Check whether challenges are separately reviewed and recorded, rather than relying on the first answer.
Corpus scope
Records are analyzed in stages. Capacity and scope are agreed for each engagement.
When comparing tools: Check which records were included, and how material outside a single prompt was handled.
Source verification
Report references link findings to supporting records and source passages.
When comparing tools: Check whether citations open the underlying record and support the stated conclusion.
Visible limits
Evidence grades, competing accounts and missing records sit alongside the findings.
When comparing tools: Check how uncertainty and unanswered questions are communicated to the reviewing team.
Request a demoSee the report.
See the report.
Ask your questions.
Walk through an example investigation report with our team. See the evidence trails, ask questions and discuss whether Pandexis fits your firm’s needs.
We agree scope, confidentiality, fee and turnaround before work begins.
The engagement includes
- Data gathering and preparation
- Case context session
- Full investigation and adversarial review
- Published interactive findings report
- Findings walkthrough
- Brief-ready exports
Scope, fixed fee, timeline and data handling agreed before work begins.