D
Disclosed.
Help validate it
Discipline:Vocational rehabilitationForensic engineeringpreviewAccident reconstructionpreview
Template preview—not a live discipline. This outline is informed by SAE J2969 (2024; critical-speed method, where applicable); Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B) and runs through the real evidence-map and AI-disclosure pipeline. It still needs practicing-expert validation before report building opens for Accident Reconstruction. Help validate this template →

A two-minute product tour · Accident Reconstruction

See the finished report—and the proof behind every line

Disclosed. turns the expert's confirmed findings into one connected package: the report, its sentence-level evidence map, the AI-use disclosure, and a record anyone can independently verify. Open only the detail you want to inspect.

Fictional matter for demonstration. No real party, expert, or data.

Download this sample as PDFor Word (.docx)Apply to shape this discipline →

What Disclosed. produced

One workflow. Four connected deliverables.

Generated together—not reconstructed later
01

The report

11 structured sections

Rule 26(a)(2)(B)-organized and editable before the expert signs.

Inspect →02

The evidence map

8 supplied sources

Numbered citations connect factual sentences to the record supplied.

Inspect →03

The AI-use record

8 logged events

Model, version, section, and evidence captured while the report is built.

Inspect →04

Independent verification

Portable manifest

Anyone holding the file can recompute its tamper-evident chain.

Inspect →
Rule 26(a)(2)(B): all elements present

Deliverable 1 + 2

Report + evidence map

Open a section to inspect its text and source links.

8 evidence-linked sections
Matter
Nguyen v. Castillo, No. 2025-CV-10934
Retaining counsel
Park & Whitman LLP (Defendant)
Expert
Daniel R. Cho
Role
Traffic accident reconstruction expert
OpinionsAwaiting your input
Within a reasonable degree of accident-reconstruction certainty, the vehicle was traveling above the critical speed of the curve and above its 35 mph advisory speed when control was lost 6 2.
Browse the other 10 report sectionsProfile, methodology, factual background, bases, and exhibits
Scope of AssignmentCited to your evidence
Park & Whitman LLP retained the expert to determine the subject vehicle's pre-crash speed and the cause of the loss of control on the curve where the collision occurred 1. The assignment was limited to the reconstruction questions and did not extend to any medical or damages opinion 1.
Collision SummaryCited to your evidence
The subject vehicle departed the roadway on a right-hand curve posted with a 35 mph advisory speed 2.
Scene and Vehicle InspectionCited to your evidence
A scene survey performed with a total station documented the curve geometry and a measured superelevation of 0.04 2. A critical-speed yaw mark deposited by the right-side tires was measured with a chord of 88 feet and a middle ordinate of 3.9 feet 3. On inspection, the vehicle's service brakes, steering, and tires were functional, with no evidence of a pre-impact mechanical failure 7.
Physical Evidence and Data ConsideredCited to your evidence
The materials considered include the total-station scene survey 2, the critical-speed yaw-mark measurements 3, the roadway drag-factor test 4, the event data recorder download 6, the vehicle inspection findings 7, and the scene and vehicle photographs 8.
Speed AnalysisCited to your evidence
Applying the chord and middle-ordinate method to the measured yaw mark yields a curve radius of approximately 250 feet 3 5. With a drag factor of 0.68 and the measured 0.04 superelevation, the critical (yaw) speed for that radius is approximately 52 mph 4 2 5. Independently, the event data recorder recorded a pre-crash speed of 58 mph in the seconds before impact 6.
Basis and ReasonsCited to your evidence
The basis is the agreement of two independent methods: the critical-speed analysis of the measured yaw mark 3 4 and the recorded event-data-recorder speed 6, both above the 35 mph advisory speed for the curve 2.
ExhibitsCited to your evidence
Exhibit A: scaled scene diagram from the total-station survey 2.Exhibit B: event data recorder (CDR) report 6.Exhibit C: scene and vehicle photographs 8.
QualificationsProfile content
Daniel R. Cho. Accredited Traffic Accident Reconstructionist (ACTAR) with IPTM collision-reconstruction training and a Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering, as detailed in the attached curriculum vitae.
Prior Testimony (Last 4 Years)Profile content
Maddox v. Reyes (2024) — deposition testimony.State v. Ferraro (2023) — trial testimony.
Statement of CompensationProfile content
$350 per hour for inspection, analysis, and report preparation; $500 per hour for deposition and trial testimony. Compensation is not contingent on the opinions expressed or the outcome of the matter.

Private review

Never saved

What still needs the expert?

Disclosed. separates actual open inputs from optional methodology prompts, so the expert sees the next decision instead of a wall of checklist text.

11

sections checked

8

records traced

1

sections awaiting expert input

Open items to resolve

  • Listed only“Photo log, Img. 1–14” appears in your records list but isn’t relied on in any analysis section — is that intentional?
  • Your input“Opinions” has an open “[Expert input needed]” item — supply it before you finalize?
Optional methodology review9 neutral prompts across 5 topics · 1 phrases were not detected

These are prompts, not failed checks. The tool asks about completeness; the expert decides what applies and what to conclude.

Scope of Assignment1 prompt ↓
  • Are the vehicles, time period, reconstruction questions, and assignment limits clear?
Scene and Vehicle Inspection2 prompts ↓
  • Are scene, vehicle, roadway, weather, and surface conditions documented where relevant?
  • Are measurement devices, data-download tools, calibration or validation information, and inspection dates identified?
Reconstruction Analysis3 prompts ↓
  • Are every calculation's measurements, units, coefficients, and source records identified?
  • Are method applicability, assumptions, and uncertainty addressed?not detected
  • Where a critical-speed calculation is used, is it compared with another available reconstruction method?
Opinions2 prompts ↓
  • Is each opinion limited to the expert's assignment, methods, and field?
  • Does each opinion use the expert's chosen, jurisdiction-appropriate level-of-certainty wording?
Basis and Reasons1 prompt ↓
  • Can a reviewer reproduce the data-to-calculation-to-opinion path from the cited record?

Nothing in this review is logged, exported, or recorded in the AI-Disclosure Appendix.

Deliverable 3

The AI-use record is built while the report is built

No reconstruction from memory: each assisted section carries the model, version, and evidence it received.

Generated automatically

This report was prepared with the assistance of an AI tool that organizes and formats the expert's own findings into the report structure. The drafting instructions restrict the model to the evidence the expert supplied, valid citation markers can identify only evidence IDs supplied for the report, and a missing or unknown marker is flagged. A valid marker records source linkage; it does not independently prove that the source is accurate or supports the sentence. The expert reviewed, verified, edited, and adopted all content of this report and is solely responsible for every fact and opinion stated herein. The following record discloses each AI-assisted section, the model and version used, and the evidence provided to it.

8

logged section events

1

model/version recorded

Travels with the report

as its disclosure appendix

Inspect the full disclosure log8 events · claude-sonnet-4-5 (claude-sonnet-4-5-20250929)
SectionModel · versionEvidence provided
scope of assignmentclaude-sonnet-4-5 · claude-sonnet-4-5-20250929Engagement letter ¶1
backgroundclaude-sonnet-4-5 · claude-sonnet-4-5-20250929Scene survey, sheet 2
investigationclaude-sonnet-4-5 · claude-sonnet-4-5-20250929Scene survey, sheet 2; Field notes, yaw mark Y-1; Vehicle inspection sheet
facts or data consideredclaude-sonnet-4-5 · claude-sonnet-4-5-20250929Scene survey, sheet 2; Field notes, yaw mark Y-1; Drag-factor test log; CDR report p.6, pre-crash record; Vehicle inspection sheet; Photo log, Img. 1–14
analysisclaude-sonnet-4-5 · claude-sonnet-4-5-20250929Field notes, yaw mark Y-1; Drag-factor test log; Scene survey, sheet 2; CDR report p.6, pre-crash record; Calculation worksheet, sheet 3
opinionsclaude-sonnet-4-5 · claude-sonnet-4-5-20250929CDR report p.6, pre-crash record; Scene survey, sheet 2
basis and reasonsclaude-sonnet-4-5 · claude-sonnet-4-5-20250929Field notes, yaw mark Y-1; Drag-factor test log; CDR report p.6, pre-crash record; Scene survey, sheet 2
exhibitsclaude-sonnet-4-5 · claude-sonnet-4-5-20250929Scene survey, sheet 2; CDR report p.6, pre-crash record; Photo log, Img. 1–14

Profile sections authored directly by the expert make no AI calls, so they do not appear in the disclosure log.

Deliverable 4

The record does not require trust in our label

The sample's AI-disclosure record is a SHA-256 hash chain: alter a single entry and every entry after it stops matching. Recompute it in your own browser, with no account and no upload. The verifier includes a doctored copy so you can watch the check fail.

Verify the record yourself →Download the disclosure manifest
Help validate this disciplineDownload as PDFWord (.docx)
See what Disclosed. produces · Disclosed.