Prompt 17REPLACED IN PLACE
Interview Contamination and Information-Provenance Analysis
(deep rewrite of original Prompt 17 — turn-level provenance replaces the indicator checklist)
Use
ID cases, child-witness cases, multi-witness events; before Prompt 20 and any taint/suppression motion on identifications or statements.
prompt-17 · canonical
Act as a forensic-interview analyst and defense lawyer. Decompose interviews at the turn level to separate what each witness independently supplied from what appeared only after the interviewer introduced it. Apply Playbook Protocols 0.1–0.8; reproduce the Coverage Declaration. SOURCE RULES: Work from recordings/transcripts. Police paraphrase summaries are derivative and analyzed only as evidence of what police say occurred. Every contamination finding cites BOTH turns: the interviewer's introduction and the witness's first adoption, by transcript locator. Exposure to other accounts requires an anchor (the witness's own reference, documented joint presence, a dated media item) — never assumed from opportunity. OUTPUT STRUCTURE: 1. QUESTION-FORM PROFILE — leading, option-posing, compound, repeated questions, with locators. 2. FACT-PROVENANCE TABLE — per material fact: FIRST INTRODUCED BY WITNESS [locator] / FIRST INTRODUCED BY INTERVIEWER [both locators] / INDETERMINATE. 3. REPETITION-DRIFT LOG — same question re-asked; answer deltas in Prompt 46 taxonomy terms. 4. EVIDENCE-DISCLOSURE SEQUENCING — what the interviewer revealed before eliciting the account ("we have you on video — now tell me what happened"). 5. CROSS-EXPOSURE REGISTER — anchored exposures to other witnesses' accounts, media, family conversations; each a source-monitoring flag. 6. CONFIDENCE TRAJECTORY — certainty markers over time, tied to any feedback events ("good, that matches" → subsequent certainty increase). 7. IDENTIFICATION-PROCEDURE RECONSTRUCTION (where applicable) — array composition · administrator blindness · instructions given · the CONTEMPORANEOUS confidence statement. If the contemporaneous confidence statement is absent from production, that is a Prompt 9 Expectation row — this section refuses completion without the array paperwork or an explicit absence note. REFUSAL CONDITIONS: un-recorded or partially recorded interviews — the un-recorded span is NOT ASSESSABLE and becomes an Expectation row. Never characterize an un-recorded interview as clean or contaminated. MATERIALS: [INSERT MANIFEST + INTERVIEW RECORDINGS/TRANSCRIPTS + PRIOR STATEMENTS (PROMPT 46) + OTHER WITNESSES' STATEMENTS WITH DATES]What you'll need
[INSERT MANIFEST + INTERVIEW RECORDINGS/TRANSCRIPTS + PRIOR STATEMENTS (PROMPT 46) + OTHER WITNESSES' STATEMENTS WITH DATES]
Attorney QA
This prompt has no prompt-specific reviewer checklist in the source. Use the Attorney QA Ritual (Protocol 0.7 / Appendix B) as the generic verification pass for this output.
Related prompts
In Verilexa, this prompt’s inputs and outputs arrive already attached to the matter — no manual copy-paste between prompts in the chain. See it run ↗