The method is the proof,
not the conclusion.
Method work is the capstone course. It applies the skills from prompt craft, deterministic SQL and custody and verification to real forensic tasks: chronology construction, register cross-checking, delay surface analysis. Every exercise is run on a real corpus, and every result must be replayable.
LLX-ACADEMY-CRS-04 · R1
This course is the capstone. The three prior courses are prerequisites.
Method work assumes that the practitioner can construct a retrieval plan (prompt craft), write deterministic SQL, and produce a custody document. All three prior courses must be completed before method work can be attempted.
Prompt craft
The practitioner must be able to construct a retrieval plan for any forensic question without guidance.
Deterministic SQL
The practitioner must be able to write SQL that is deterministic and that queries across index schemas correctly.
Custody and verification
The practitioner must be able to replay a retrieval and produce a custody document independently.
A chronology is a retrieval task, not an editorial task.
A chronology is not a narrative — it is a set of dated assertions, each one retrieved from the sealed corpus and cited to its source passage. This session teaches the practitioner to construct a chronology using the XATR index, to identify gaps and conflicts in the chronology, and to present each entry with its custody record.
Selecting the date type
A chronology entry must use a specific date type: issue date, transmission date, received date or programme date. The choice depends on the forensic question — the practitioner must state the choice and the reason in the chronology header.
Ordering the corpus in time
Using the XATR index to retrieve all documents of a given class within a date range, ordered by the selected date type. The SQL pattern and the determinism requirements.
Identifying gaps
A gap in the chronology is a finding. Using the XATR delay surface to identify the gap between issue date and transmission date for each document in the chronology. Presenting the gap with its source passages.
Identifying conflicts
Two documents with conflicting statements about the same event. Using the KUNZU contradiction surface to identify the conflict. How to present the conflict without resolving it — that is for the tribunal.
The register says one thing. The corpus says another.
A register cross-check compares what a formal register asserts — a drawing register, a correspondence register, a programme register — against what the corpus actually contains. Discrepancies are findings. This session teaches the cross-check methodology and how to present discrepancies as forensic evidence.
The drawing register
Extracting the drawing register from the corpus using the metadata index. Comparing revision numbers, issue dates and transmission dates against the transmittal records in the XATR index. What a discrepancy between the register and the transmittal proves.
The correspondence register
Extracting the correspondence register and cross-checking it against the corpus. Identifying transmittals that appear in the register but not in the corpus, and transmittals in the corpus that do not appear in the register.
The programme register
Extracting all submitted programme revisions and cross-checking the activity dates in each against the XATR index. Identifying activities that were revised after the events they were supposed to precede.
Presenting discrepancies
Each discrepancy must be presented with three elements: the register entry (cited to its page), the corpus evidence that contradicts it (cited to its passage), and the custody record that proves both retrievals are verifiable.
The delay is indexed. The argument is not.
The XATR delay surface records the gap between what was assumed and what was delivered. This session teaches the practitioner to read the delay surface, to identify the events that caused or accelerated the delay, and to present the analysis using only indexed facts.
Reading the delay surface
The XATR delay surface: issue date, transmission date, programme date, gap. How to query the surface for a specific activity or document class. What the gap value proves and what the practitioner must not infer from it alone.
Attributing delay events
Identifying the document or instruction that caused a gap to open. Using the KUNZU relation graph to find all obligations that were outstanding at the moment the gap opened. Presenting the attribution chain.
Concurrent delay
Two delay events from different causes that overlap in time. The XATR index records both. How to present concurrent delay in a way that is forensically accurate without resolving the apportionment question — that is for the expert and the tribunal.
The expert deliverable
The form of the delay analysis deliverable for submission to a tribunal or arbitration panel. What it must contain, what it must not assert, and how it is distinguished from an expert opinion. Practicum: produce a delay analysis deliverable from a provided corpus.
Produce a complete forensic analysis deliverable.
The method work assessment provides a sealed corpus and a forensic instruction — a delay claim, a programme dispute or a register discrepancy. The practitioner has a defined period to produce a complete deliverable: chronology, register cross-check or delay analysis, with full custody documentation. The examiner independently verifies every retrieval.
Full deliverable
The practitioner produces the complete deliverable in the required format. Every assertion must cite the passage from which it was retrieved. Every retrieval must be recorded in the custody record.
Custody documentation
The deliverable must be accompanied by a custody document listing every retrieval_id used in the analysis. The examiner independently replays each retrieval and verifies the result.
Examiner cross-examination
The examiner selects three assertions from the deliverable and asks the practitioner to trace each one from the assertion back to the source passage and the ingestion event. The practitioner must be able to do this without assistance.
Passing method work completes the Certified expert examination.
Method work is the final module of the Certified expert examination. It is also the module that distinguishes the expert from the analyst: the expert can produce a deliverable that withstands examination in a proceeding. Passing this module, combined with all prior modules, confers the Certified expert designation.