How to Build an Evidence Matrix for Litigation
Map litigation issues to propositions, supporting and contrary sources, review status and open questions. Includes an Excel template and synthetic example.
A chronology tells you when events happened. An evidence matrix shows what material supports each proposition you may need to establish, what cuts against it and what remains unresolved. Build the matrix around issues and propositions, then link each entry to a precise place in the record.
Finish with a matrix that connects each proposition to supporting and contrary sources, its review status and the next check. The working kit provides a blank Excel matrix, a completed example, a prompt and fictional source records.
This guide is for a lawyer or reviewer organising a litigation file. The workbook is a working review aid. Its labels do not decide admissibility, the weight of evidence or whether an allegation is proved. Those decisions remain with the lawyer.
Start with the question you need to answer
Write the issue in plain language, then split it into propositions small enough to check. “Aster breached the agreement” is too broad for a factual row. “The agreement states that 12 equipment units were to reach Northline's warehouse by 30 April” is a proposition you can test against a particular clause.
Use the current pleadings, instructions or issue list to define the questions. Record which version you used. If the questions are provisional, say so. A matrix that quietly substitutes an AI-generated issue list for the lawyer's questions can organise the wrong case very neatly.
Keep the event history in a separate chronology. Give matrix rows stable proposition IDs so a chronology event can link to the proposition it affects. Cross-references back to the documents also make the sequence checkable. The Commercial Court Guide provides a jurisdiction-specific example of document-linked chronology preparation. It is not a universal evidence-matrix requirement. 1
Give each row a clear job
Use one proposition per row. Keep an attributed statement, an inference and a legal assessment separate. These sentences mean different things: “Sales said delivery was complete”, “The warehouse received the pilot shipment” and “The delivery obligation was satisfied”. The first is about what a person said. The second needs evidence of receipt. The third requires legal assessment against the agreement and relevant law.
The workbook provides these fields:
- Issue ID and proposition ID: stable references you can use in the chronology and brief.
- Proposition and proposition type: the exact assertion, labelled fact candidate, attributed account, inference or legal assessment required.
- Supporting material and pinpoint: document ID, exact clause, paragraph, page or line and the limited point it supports.
- Contrary material and pinpoint: the strongest supplied material that qualifies or contradicts the proposition.
- Evidence status: use unreviewed, supported in supplied material, contested, incomplete or requires legal assessment. “Supported” is not a finding that a court would accept the proposition.
- Source limitations and open question: identify missing originals, unclear authorship, incomplete extracts or an inference the document does not establish.
- Next check, owner, reviewer, review date and review status: make the remaining work assignable and visible.
If a source supports only part of a proposition, narrow the wording or split the row. Do not fill the gap with a confidence score.
Check the original material on both sides
Open the cited passage and enough surrounding material to understand it. Check the author, date, document version, attachment chain and whether the passage reports an event or repeats another person's account. Record the exact quote separately from your interpretation where the distinction matters.
Search for adverse material deliberately. Ask what would make the proposition wrong or too broad. Then look for that material using different names, dates and document types. A second copy of the same email is not independent corroboration. A later sales statement is not a substitute for a receipt.
AI can suggest rows or retrieve passages, but inspect each material assertion before relying on it. The ABA's guidance treats review as dependent on the tool and task; it does not provide a universal percentage of output that is safe to leave unchecked. 2
Work through the synthetic example
The downloadable packet is entirely fictional. Northline ordered 12 equipment units from Aster. The partial agreement says delivery to the warehouse was due by 30 April. The packet contains dispatch correspondence, a warehouse receipt, an unpacking note, a sales account and a carrier export. It has no signed consignment note or legal finding. The equipment record is a connected running example across this library. Reusing it lets you follow the same sources through different review tasks. Apply the source and review checks to the records in your own matter.
For proposition P-01, “The supplied agreement states a 30 April warehouse delivery date”, DOC-001 L04 provides direct textual support. The qualification is that only an agreement extract is supplied. The matrix records the wording and asks for the complete executed agreement and any variations before legal assessment.
For P-02, “All 12 pilot units reached the warehouse by 30 April”, DOC-006 L03 records sales' understanding. DOC-004 L03 says nothing had arrived by 16:10 that day. DOC-003 L02–L05 records 10 cartons the next morning without an inspected unit count. DOC-005 L02–L05 explains that two of the 12 units later on the floor came from a separate order. These sources do not justify changing “sales said” to an established fact of complete delivery.
The carrier export adds another distinction. DOC-007 L02 records a delivery scan at 23:15 on 30 April. L03 places that scan at the depot gate with no recipient signature. Preserve the scan event and warehouse account separately. The outstanding question is how the carrier event relates to physical warehouse receipt, not which timestamp produces a cleaner story.
The example workbook leaves P-02 contested and the legal consequence unresolved. Its next checks are the signed consignment note, the full agreement and a confirmed account of receipt and quantities. It does not invent the missing answer.
Extract candidate evidence rows
Review and maintain the matrix
Have the reviewer open the sources, adjust the proposition and record the review date. A completed check should say what was checked and which limitations remain. “Reviewed” alone does not say whether a row was accepted, corrected or left unresolved.
When new material arrives, retain the earlier wording and decision in a change register. Update affected propositions, then check any brief or chronology that relied on them. Keep an as-of date and source-packet version. A useful matrix is a reviewable record of the evidence you have, not a claim that collection is complete.
The working kit
Download the blank evidence matrix, a completed synthetic example, field instructions, reusable extraction prompt and the complete source packet. Filters and frozen identifying columns help you work through propositions by issue, status, owner or reviewer. The workbook deliberately leaves legal assessments to the lawyer.
Use the reviewed propositions in the next piece of work
Move checked facts, competing accounts and open questions into a source-linked brief. Keep the same proposition IDs so another reviewer can get back to the evidence. If you want to see how this fits a matter workspace, contact Grella.