Counsel uses INC Forensic's evidence-checked methodology to surface the contradictions, gaps, and causal pathways that live between documents — across providers, time, and modalities — sourced and ready for the expert.
Five deliverables, scaled to what counsel needs.
A dated, source-cited reconstruction of the record set: every encounter in date order, beginning at the earliest record provided — not at the date of loss. Pre-incident records are part of the timeline by design. Each entry carries its provider, its findings, and its citation. The foundation a retained expert builds from.
The medical story of the case, told in clinical voice: pre-injury baseline, mechanism of injury and acute presentation, course of care and objective diagnostics, and how the objective findings and the subjective complaints relate to one another over time. The material a declaration can be built from — not a declaration. A declaration is sworn; the provider reads the material, corrects anything inaccurate, and adopts it as their own.
Not adversarial. Tier 2 describes and lets the correlations fall where the evidence puts them.
The red-team breakdown of the case. An adversarial audit of the record: what is weak, what is missing, what is incongruent, where conclusions outrun the cited record, and whether the opinions already in the file would survive a reliability challenge. It lets counsel see the case the way the other side will see it — and price and posture it honestly before the other side does that work for them.
Delivered as a claim ledger, a ranked vulnerability list, an admissibility screen, an integrity risk index, and an evidentiary-void list. Every assertion cites its source; every alleged contradiction carries verbatim quotes from each conflicting document; where the record is silent it says "not documented" rather than filling the gap.
Tier 3 is the engaging party's internal work product — used for evaluation, strategy, and preparation, never submitted as evidence and never adopted by a retained expert. Where both sides of a matter have run it, neither sees the other's report.
Fortification and strategy — where the case is put back together. The forward plan built on Tier 3's findings: anticipate the defense examiner, rehabilitate the file, acquire what is missing, and build the questions for the witnesses. Every action is tied to the vulnerability it cures, with its blowback risk stated before anyone pulls the trigger.
Delivered as an IME rebuttal matrix, a vulnerability fix matrix, targeted document requests and clarification queries, deposition and cross-examination architecture, and a plain-English risk and value brief.
Tier 4 runs without a retainer, on the same per-matter basis as the tiers below it. Either side may choose an exclusivity retainer — the ordinary posture of a retained consultant, neither treater nor testifying expert — which closes Tiers 3 and 4 to the adverse party.
Objective diagnostic testing of the examinee, performed by INC's own providers and by clinicians in its trusted referral network, under an integrated intrasubject design with statistical analytics. Testing spans the cognitive, limbic, autonomic, endocrine, vestibular, visuomotor, sensory and motor domains. Examinations are clinical engagements retained by the commissioning party and conducted under their own agreement, separate from the analytical tiers.
The intrasubject design starts from the claims in the case: which functions are said to be impaired, and what they should be compared against. Each examinee serves as their own control, so a claimed deficit is measured against that person's own performance in domains the case doesn't dispute, not only against a population average. Intra-individual differences are interpreted against published base rates of normal variability, so expected scatter is not mistaken for impairment.
Glassbox. Each diagnostic device has its own Glassbox: it reads that device's output, carries it into the intrasubject design, applies the statistical analytics, and renders the graphical exhibits counsel and the retained expert work from. Reporting comes at three depths — Detailed, Comprehensive, or Executive Summary. Where an expert wants to bring a device INC does not yet support, development of a Glassbox for that device can be commissioned; once built it joins the standard set and works the same way in every matter that uses it.
MedSight — in development. A second-read advanced imaging analysis, to be reported alongside the radiologist's own interpretation rather than in place of it. Not available in current matters.
Billing. The examination and the clinician's time are contracted and paid under their own agreement, separate from platform billing. Glassbox is platform tooling and stays on platform billing, priced by report depth. A commissioned Glassbox is quoted before work begins.
Every matter starts with Tier 1, the source-cited chronology that all other work is built on. From there, choose only what the case needs: Tier 2 and Tier 3 analyses are à la carte, and Tier 4 analyses are à la carte once Tier 3 is in place. Tiers 1 through 4 are priced per matter based on record volume, with no retainer required, and the full estimate is shown before anything runs. Tier 5 is contracted separately with the examining clinician.
Where the record is dense, the timeline contested, and the diagnostics span specialties.
Network-level analysis isn't only for counsel. Clinicians use INC to find documentation gaps, missed correlations, and weak points in their own records before anyone else does. INC supports clinical judgment and never replaces it: the clinician weighs each finding and decides what, if anything, to do about it.
INC surfaces gaps, unsupported claims, and timeline inconsistencies opposing counsel could later exploit. The clinician reviews each flag through their own clinical reasoning and decides whether and how to address it.
INC surfaces where the documented record diverges from the intended course of care, the kind of gap that invites a challenge at deposition. Whether a divergence matters, and what to do about it, is the clinician's call.
Before a report is produced, INC pressure-tests it against the underlying record so contradictions surface before cross-examination does. INC surfaces; the expert decides. Every clinical opinion remains the expert's own.
A documented four-stage workflow, built so the same record yields the same verified findings.
An evidence-based analytical methodology, with every finding checked against peer-reviewed clinical and forensic literature. MEA tests whether the case's assertions are supported by the record — the patterns, the relationships, the inconsistencies that decide complex cases.
How findings evolve across the full treatment arc — surfacing patterns that span years that no single encounter reveals.
How the injury developed and was documented — and the moments where the record diverges from the claimed timeline.
Conflicting evidence, treatment not reflected in the documented findings, documentation gaps. Errors and weaknesses identified prior to depositions and cross-examinations.
INC reads the record all at once — as one connected system, not a stack of documents.
A case may engage INC from any seat — plaintiff counsel, defense counsel, a treating provider, an IME clinician — and the analysis returned is the same. The analysis does not change with the buyer.
Every analytical tier — the chronology, the narrative assessment, the MEA audit, and Tier 4's fortification and strategy work — can be engaged by any party in a matter without a retainer. Nothing in Tiers 1 through 4 sits behind one.
The chronology and the narrative assessment are available to any party in any matter, including a matter in which INC is retained by someone else. They are the evidence-path products — the material a retained expert reviews, adopts, and signs — and a method whose evidence-path outputs could be bought by one side and denied to the other would be advocacy equipment, whatever its internal discipline.
One retainer per case. It may be initiated by counsel, by a consultant, or by a retained expert witness, and once established it governs the matter.
There is one examinee and one examination, and commissioning it retains the examiner. No separate exclusivity retainer applies or is needed.
A report bought before a retainer was established remains that party's report. Availability governs what can be newly ordered; it is never applied backwards.
Each party's record set is held separately, never merged and never cross-referenced. INC does not share one party's records, reports, or identity with another. Where more than one party in a matter holds reports, the access record can be produced to demonstrate the barrier held.
Every finding is checked against peer-reviewed clinical and forensic literature. The method is designed to the Daubert and FRE 702/703 reliability standard for expert evidence.
Every claim cites the underlying record page and the supporting references. Nothing in the analysis lives without a source.
The same structural reading regardless of who engages it. Counsel determines how the analysis applies to the case.
The published report is defined by what survives a fixed verification gate, not by what the model first drafted: verified-output reproducibility. The gate is the same in every matter, and INC is measuring two-run agreement directly.
The analysis is a tool qualified experts use. It does not testify, and it does not diagnose — it reports what the record contains and where. At Tier 5, licensed clinicians perform examinations under their own agreements; the examining clinician is the only participant who could testify, and only if the retaining attorney puts the report in evidence.
The extraction pipeline, the controlled vocabulary, the case map, and the citation-verification step are INC's own, built and controlled directly. Two components sit outside that core and are used as directed tools: a specialized medical-domain model performs the reasoning step under constraint, and an external literature database supplies the research each finding is checked against. Neither is a consumer chatbot, and neither has final say over what reaches a report.
Daubert's factors are the reliability standard INC designs to — not a claim that the analysis has itself been ruled on. INC can disclose a process rate today: how often a proposed finding is removed at each verification gate, and how often a reviewing expert corrects one that survived. That is not a validated diagnostic error rate, and INC does not call it one; establishing that requires a blinded validation study, which is under way. General acceptance, Daubert's fifth factor, INC does not claim at all — the components are conventional, the assembled method is new, and new methods do not have general acceptance by definition.
INC Forensic analyzes evidence the way opposing counsel will — examining how findings connect across the entire record to identify vulnerabilities before they become liabilities.
INC surfaces conflicting evidence, unsupported conclusions, documentation gaps, errors, and case weaknesses for counsel — early, prior to depositions and cross-examinations. An early understanding of the injury terrain is essential to strong case management and rehabilitation.