A chronology should make the file easier to follow without smoothing over gaps in the evidence. This example asks for one source reference per event and keeps reported statements attributed.
Use this structure for a first-pass timeline from a defined set of documents. It is particularly useful when a document date, a reported event date and an agreed deadline could be confused.
This prompt organises supplied facts. It does not decide whether a contract was breached or which account is correct.
The prompt and example response
See what the brief asks for.
You can copy the prompt, including its fictional facts, to practise in a suitable tool. The response shown here is manually authored; this page is not a live AI chat.
01 / CHRONOLOGY
Preparing a chronology
Label each source and keep what it establishes separate from what remains uncertain.
Illustrative conversation
You
Your prompt
Prepare a factual chronology for a litigation solicitor in England and Wales. Use only these fictional sources:
D1 — Email, 3 March 2026: Oak Studio asks Cedar Supplies for 100 folders at £600, requesting delivery on 10 March.
D2 — Email, 5 March 2026: Cedar expects to dispatch on 8 March; delivery date is to be confirmed.
D3 — Dispatch note, 8 March 2026: 100 folders dispatched.
D4 — Email, 12 March 2026: Oak says the folders have not arrived.
Return a table: date, event, source. Attribute reported statements. Flag gaps separately. Do not infer an agreed delivery date, receipt or breach, and do not add legal analysis.
LE
Example assistant
Illustrative response
Factual chronology from D1–D4
Date
Event
Source
3 March 2026
Oak requests 100 folders at £600 and delivery on 10 March.
D1
5 March 2026
Cedar says it expects dispatch on 8 March; delivery remains to be confirmed.
D2
8 March 2026
The dispatch note records 100 folders dispatched.
D3
12 March 2026
Oak reports that the folders have not arrived.
D4
Gaps: No confirmation of an agreed delivery date, evidence of receipt or later correspondence is supplied.
Check the response against the supplied sources.
Why this prompt works
Every event has a source, and a requested delivery date is not presented as an agreed term.
Compare every date and description with its cited source.
Check whether the entry records an event, a request or somebody’s account of what happened.
Keep an expected dispatch date separate from actual dispatch, delivery and receipt.
Read the underlying documents for omissions that the draft timeline may hide.
Adapt the brief
Use it with your own task.
Label a larger bundle with stable document IDs before asking for a chronology.
Add page or paragraph references if your sources support them.
For conflicting accounts, ask for a separate column naming the source of each account.
If the timeline exposes a missing delivery record, use the evidence gap example to turn that omission into a question for review.
For real work, use a tool approved for the information involved and keep the responsible professional’s review. A prompt cannot guarantee an accurate answer. This example is training material, not legal advice.