fact-extractor: chronological fact brief from a folder of case files

Ask an assistant to summarize a folder of case files and you get something readable that you cannot check against the record. This agent solves the reverse problem: every fact it writes cites the exact file and page it came from, so nothing in the brief has to be taken on faith. It produces a chronological fact brief with seven sections, and the last two are the pair most summaries skip. The timeline carries exact dates. The actor list gives each person's role and their first and last appearance in the record. The document inventory names what exists and, harder, what does not: gaps in a sequence, a referenced attachment nobody produced, a period with no documents at all. The factual anchors are the quotations, figures, test scores, and findings an argument can be built on, each with a pinpoint. The communication history shows who wrote to whom, by what medium, and whether the file contains a reply. Section six holds the conflicts the record itself contains. Section seven holds everything the record does not cover. Four disciplines make the result trustworthy rather than merely tidy. It counts before it reads, and reports the count. The header says 14 files present, 13 read, 1 unreadable. A brief built from 13 of 14 files is useful. One that reads 13 and presents as though it covered 14 is a trap, and you cannot tell them apart after the fact. It marks how each fact is known. DOCUMENT for the primary record. REPORTED for a document recounting something outside itself, such as a chart note recording what a patient said. INFERRED for anything it concluded rather than read, with the basis stated. The distinction rests on a stricter rule underneath: every sentence it writes is a report, an inference, or a judgment, and only reports and marked inferences belong in a fact brief. A chain of two or three retellings still reads like a fact by the time it reaches a brief, so the chain stays visible. It keeps conflicts as conflicts. Where two documents date the same event differently, both versions appear with both sources. It does not quietly pick the one that makes a cleaner story. It ends on the gaps. Unreadable files by name, periods with no documents, things referenced but never produced, and for each one the specific document that would resolve it. Not "further investigation," but which document. It also dates the institutions, not only the events. A name freezes something that changes: a job title, a policy, an agency. The brief attaches the date the record actually supports, the policy as it read on the loss date rather than "the policy," the title a person held at the time rather than the one they hold now, and records any change in between as its own timeline entry. It carries specific handling for four kinds of file. In medical records it separates pre-injury baseline from post-injury function and reads discharge status for what it actually says. In employment matters it quotes the exact language of a promise and separates negotiated terms from boilerplate. In property matters it builds the notice history and inventories photographs with their timestamps, saying so when a photograph carries no reliable one. In financial records it traces every figure to the line that produced it. It states no legal conclusions, assesses no liability, characterizes no conduct, and estimates no value. It will not fill a gap with a plausible reconstruction, and if the record does not support a coherent timeline it says so. That restraint is the whole point: everything downstream is built on the fact brief, so it has to be trustworthy before it is interesting. Requires Claude Code, Claude Desktop, or claude.ai on a plan that supports agents. It requests no shell access, no file writing, and no network access, so it cannot change anything in your environment or send anything out of it. The bundle includes a worked example: a fourteen-file habitability folder with four deliberate traps, and the brief the agent returns. Built by Counsel Engine (counselengine.ai), a practice that installs AI research-and-drafting systems inside solo and small firms. This agent is one component of the system installed in that engagement. One license covers one practice. Outputs require professional review before any firm-affecting action or any use in a client matter.

Build me a fact brief from the files in `~/matters/sample-habitability/`.

Folder contents (14 files, mixed formats, one file unreadable):

sample-habitability/
├─ 01_lease_executed_2024-03-11.pdf
├─ 02_tenant_email_2025-01-14.txt
├─ 03_tenant_email_2025-02-02.txt
├─ 04_certified_letter_2025-02-19.pdf
├─ 05_landlord_reply_2025-02-27.txt
├─ 06_photos_kitchen_2025-01-14/        (6 images)
├─ 07_fire_dept_report_2025-03-03.pdf
├─ 08_remediation_estimate_2025-03-10.pdf
├─ 09_code_enforcement_notice_2025-03-21.pdf
├─ 10_repair_invoice_2025-06-08.pdf
├─ 11_rent_ledger_2024-2025.xlsx
├─ 12_inspection_report_scanned.pdf     (image-only, no text layer)
├─ 13_tenant_notes_undated.txt
└─ 14_prior_tenant_complaint_2023.pdf

What two of those files actually say:

02_tenant_email_2025-01-14.txt:
"I wanted to report that there is standing water covering approximately
half the kitchen floor and it looks like it's coming from under the sink.
Can someone come take a look this week?"

04_certified_letter_2025-02-19.pdf:
"This letter serves as formal notice under the lease and applicable law
that the water intrusion beneath the kitchen sink, first reported January
14, 2025, remains unrepaired. Demand is made that repair be completed
within 14 days of this notice."

Four things in this folder are the kind that quietly corrupt a fact brief:
1. File 12 cannot be read. It is a scan with no text layer.
2. Files 07 and 09 date the same inspection differently.
3. File 13 is undated; its content implies a date the record never states.
4. File 14 concerns a different tenant and is background only.

Everything above is invented for demonstration. Describes no real matter,
person, address, or document.

FACT BRIEF: sample-habitability
Prepared: 2026-08-30   Corpus: 14 files present, 13 read, 1 unreadable

1. TIMELINE
2024-03-11 | Lease executed, 12-mo term from 2024-04-01 | 01 | DOCUMENT
2025-01-14 | Tenant emailed landlord: standing water under kitchen sink | 02 | DOCUMENT
2025-01-14 | 6 kitchen photos filed under this folder date; time of day not established | 06 | DOCUMENT/INFERRED
2025-02-02 | Tenant follow-up: no repair yet | 03 | DOCUMENT
2025-02-19 | Certified letter: 14-day repair demand | 04 | DOCUMENT
2025-02-27 | Landlord reply: contractor scheduled | 05 | DOCUMENT
2025-03-03 | Fire dept report: energized outlet contacting standing water [CONFLICT, see 6] | 07 | DOCUMENT
2025-03-10 | Remediation estimate, $8,400 | 08 | DOCUMENT
2025-03-21 | Code enforcement notice of violation | 09 | DOCUMENT
2025-06-08 | Repair invoice, $6,150 | 10 | DOCUMENT
undated    | Tenant's handwritten notes, "the second visit" - no date stated | 13 | DOCUMENT

2. ACTORS
Tenant           | 2024-03-11 to 2025-06-08 | files 01-06, 13
Landlord         | 2024-03-11 to 2025-02-27 | files 01, 05
Fire department  | 2025-03-03               | file 07
Remediation contractor | 2025-03-10 to 2025-06-08 | files 08, 10
Code enforcement | 2025-03-21               | file 09
Prior tenant     | 2023 | file 14 - NOT this tenant, background only

3. DOCUMENT INVENTORY
Present: lease (01), 2 tenant emails (02-03), certified letter (04), landlord
reply (05), 6 photos (06), fire dept report (07), remediation estimate (08),
code enforcement notice (09), repair invoice (10), rent ledger (11), undated
notes (13), prior-tenant complaint (14, different tenant, background only)
Referenced but not produced: contractor scheduling confirmation (in 05); the
inspection the code enforcement notice cites (in 09)

4. FACTUAL ANCHORS
"standing water covering approximately half the kitchen floor" | 02 | DOCUMENT
Estimate $8,400 vs. invoice $6,150, difference $2,250 | 08, 10 | DOCUMENT
First notice to invoiced repair: 145 days | computed from 02, 10 | INFERRED

5. COMMUNICATION HISTORY
2025-01-14 tenant to landlord, email, no response in file
2025-02-19 tenant to landlord, certified letter, response 2025-02-27

6. CONFLICTS IN THE RECORD
Inspection date preceding the code enforcement notice:
  A: 2025-03-03, per fire dept report (07), dated, unit identified
  B: "the February inspection," per code enforcement notice (09), no date
  Not resolved here. Both stated.

7. GAPS
Unreadable: 12_inspection_report_scanned.pdf, image-only, no text layer - may
  be the document section 6 needs
No documents: 2024-03-11 to 2025-01-14 (10 months)
Referenced but absent: contractor scheduling confirmation (05); inspection
  underlying the code enforcement notice (09)
Would resolve: a readable copy of file 12, landlord's Feb 2025 contractor
  correspondence, code enforcement's file for the 2025-03-21 notice

NOT ASSESSED: legal sufficiency, breach, or value. Reports what the files say.

Sanitized example, not professional advice. All sales final — use the preview to confirm fit before purchase.

The author has tested this tool on the providers below. The specific model list updates automatically as providers ship new models or retire old ones. Compatibility with providers not listed below is not guaranteed — the tool may not produce equivalent results outside the tested set.

• v1.0.0Current2026-09-08

Existing buyers receive new versions free of charge. Pin to a specific version from your library if your workflow needs the exact bundle behavior of an earlier release.

No reviews yet — be the first after you buy.