Can AI decide which expert methodology is correct?

It can help identify and organise differences. The qualified expert and legal team must assess the methodology, evidence, and relevance.

Review assumptions across expert reports in a DIFC dispute

Executive summary

Map each conclusion to the data and assumptions supporting it. Ask the expert to address technical differences and counsel to assess their legal significance.

Separate instructed assumptions from factual findings.

Trace calculations to source material.

Keep technical questions with the qualified expert.

Identify the reports and instructions

Collect the report versions, letters of instruction, appendices, and relevant directions. Record the discipline and questions each expert was asked to address.

Check the DIFC procedural framework with counsel. A document comparison can assist preparation but does not determine whether a report meets the applicable evidential requirements.

Build the comparison fields

Capture the issue, source data, assumed facts, method, conclusion, and stated qualification. Keep the expert's own wording and page reference where the distinction matters.

Do not merge an assumption supplied by a party with a fact independently established by the expert. That difference can affect how the report is understood.

Test a disputed input

Suppose two quantum reports use different completion dates. Before comparing the final figures, identify where each date came from and how it affects the calculation.

Ask the experts to explain the technical consequences. A language model may identify the mismatch, but it should not substitute its own calculation or methodology for the expert's analysis.

Prepare focused questions

Group questions by missing source, unexplained assumption, inconsistent method, and difference in scope. Give the expert the exact passages rather than a general instruction to rebut the other report.

Keep counsel's litigation assessment separate. An apparent inconsistency may be explainable by different instructions or a different factual premise.

Maintain the working record

Save the expert's response and identify which matrix entries changed. Preserve superseded reports so the team can follow the development of the opinion.

Use the final comparison to support preparation and review. The expert remains responsible for technical opinion, and counsel remains responsible for the procedural and legal use of the material.

Sources and next steps

This is an editorial workflow guide for legal professionals. The suggested checks are our practical recommendations, not a statement that a regulator requires a particular software workflow.

DIFC Courts: current rules

Explore Review Matrix and Document Review, or review Judicio's regional coverage and limitations. Check the underlying source and your organisation's approved process before relying on an output.