Why experts need a record, not just a check
Courts have excluded expert declarations and reports because they cited articles that do not exist. In Kohls v. Ellison (D. Minn. 2025), a declaration was excluded over two nonexistent articles. In LeDoux v. Outliers (W.D. Wash. 2026), an expert was excluded under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 for hallucinated citations, and the plaintiff's remaining claims were dismissed. These and other matters are tracked, with primary documents, in the AI in the Courtroom record.
Courts have also begun ordering AI-related material produced in discovery. An expert who verified every source should be able to show it, in a form that stands up to cross-examination, without assembling it after the fact.
What Checked Sources is designed to give an expert
- A review queue built from the report itself, so no citation is missed
- A record of the source named for each item before it was checked
- System observations kept separate from the expert's own declarations
- A hash-chained, append-only log that can be produced without editing
- A no-upload mode for reports under a protective order
- An export that names the matter, so the cost can be billed as a case expense
Aligned to a published standard
The record follows the field schema published for The Expert Record Standard v1.0, in particular Clause 3 (independent authority), Clause 4 (checkability before adoption) and Clause 7 (contemporaneous record). The Standard is free, and it certifies no product. See the verification log for the disclosure.
What it does not do
Checked Sources does not form opinions, judge whether a source supports a conclusion, or make any opinion admissible. It records the verification an expert performed. Whether that verification was sufficient in a particular matter is a question for counsel and the tribunal.