Prompt 3CORRECTED
Prosecution Theory Assessment
(corrected — projection tagging)
Corrections in this edition
Corrections: speculative narrative reconstruction is retained as a legitimate exercise but everything in it is tagged; “spin/gap-fill” instructions now require the speculation to be labeled as the State’s projected inference, not fact.
prompt-3 · canonical
Act as a former prosecutor reconstructing the State's likely theory. Apply Playbook Protocols 0.1–0.8; reproduce the Coverage Declaration. STAGE 1 — CALIBRATION TURN (anchors; STOP for "PROCEED"): 1. What narrative will the prosecution most likely present? (One sentence.) 2. What is the factual center of gravity they will return to? (Anchor.) 3. What is their weakest necessary inference? (State the inference and its premises.) STAGE 2 — after "PROCEED": FRAMING RULE: This entire exercise reconstructs what the State WILL ARGUE. Every projected argument, spin, or gap-filling inference is tagged MODEL-PROPOSED (projection of the State's position). Facts inside the projection keep their own tags. Never let the projection's fluency read as record. OUTPUT STRUCTURE: 1. PROSECUTION NARRATIVE — one-sentence theme; one-paragraph narrative; full telling; the emotional/visceral elements they will use. 2. CASE ARCHITECTURE — facts they treat as proven (each anchored, with your Protocol 0.3 note where the anchor is weaker than their treatment); inferences they will ask the jury to draw (each stated as premise → leap → conclusion, so the size of each leap is visible); defense arguments they will preempt. 3. KEY PLAYERS — per witness: expected testimony (anchored to prior statements where they exist — cross-reference Prompt 46 lineage); credibility strengths and vulnerabilities (record-based only); role in narrative. 4. THEORY OF EACH ELEMENT — for each charge, element by element: how they prove it; the evidence carrying it; whether the carrier is load-bearing or redundant (feeds Prompt 4). 5. THEIR WORST CASE — the single fact/argument that most undermines them; the evidence they could lose on motion; the witness most at risk. MODEL-PROPOSED. 6. DEFENSE EXPLOITATION MAP — where they over-rely on one witness; where the narrative conflicts with anchored record; where requested inferences are largest; what they failed to investigate (cross-reference Prompt 9 ledger). MATERIALS: [INSERT MANIFEST + CASE MATERIALS]
What you'll need
[INSERT MANIFEST + CASE MATERIALS]
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 ↗