# Lumen AI Quick-Start Guide — Using the 6 AI Analysis Tools

**Last Updated**: March 30, 2026 | **Available from**: Dashboard → Case → [Tools] → [Lumen]

---

## What is Lumen AI?

Lumen is Evident's built-in AI assistant. It analyzes your evidence and answers questions like:

- 📝 "What's in this file?" (Evidence Summary)
- 🔍 "Do any files contradict each other?" (Contradiction Analysis)
- 📅 "Build me a timeline of events" (Timeline Reconstruction)
- ⚖️ "Does this evidence meet legal standards?" (Legal Tagging)
- 📄 "Write a comprehensive analysis" (Full Analysis Report)
- 💪 "How strong is my case?" (Burden of Proof)

---

## Before You Start: Check Your Tier

| Tier | Tool 1 | Tools 2–6 |
|------|--------|----------|
| 🆓 Demo | ✓ Summary | 🔒 Locked |
| 💰 Starter | ✓ Summary | 🔒 Locked |
| 📊 **Professional** | ✓ Summary | ✓ **ALL UNLOCKED** |
| 🎯 **Premium** | ✓ Summary | ✓ **ALL UNLOCKED** |
| 🏢 **Enterprise** | ✓ Summary | ✓ **ALL UNLOCKED** |

**Need to upgrade?** → Settings → Billing → View Plans

---

## Tool #1: Evidence Summary ✓ Available All Tiers

**What it does**: Quick 200-word overview of any file.

### How to Use

```
STEP 1: Upload file
        Dashboard → Cases → [Case] → [Upload Files]

STEP 2: Wait for pipeline
        • Small files (<100 MB): 30 seconds
        • Large files (>1 GB): 2–5 minutes
        ✓ Green "Ready" badge appears

STEP 3: Open Lumen
        Files list → Click file → [Tools] → [Lumen] → [Evidence Summary]

STEP 4: Read result
        Side panel opens with summary (takes 5–10 seconds to generate)
```

### Example Output

```
FILE: Interview_With_Witness_Smith.mp3
Duration: 15 minutes | 3 speakers detected

SUMMARY:
Witness describes seeing suspect at 2:30 PM wearing blue jacket.
Witness estimated distance: 30–50 feet. Lighting: afternoon sun, clear.
Witness did not observe any weapon. No mention of vehicle.
Interview conducted by Officer Johnson at 3:15 PM (45 minutes after incident).

KEY STATEMENTS:
- "I definitely saw him, about 50 feet away"
- "He had a blue jacket on"
- "No gun that I could see"

POTENTIAL ISSUES:
- Delayed interview (45 minutes after event)
- Distance/visibility limited (50 feet)
- Subjective assessment ("couldn't see a gun" ≠ "no gun")

CONFIDENCE: High (direct witness)
```

### When to Use

✅ First time reviewing a file
✅ Writing email to client/staff
✅ Preparing deposition questions
✅ Jury presentation (quick background)
✅ Settlement discussion (quick facts)

---

## Tool #2: Contradiction Analysis 🔒 Professional+ Only

**What it does**: Find inconsistencies across **all files in a case**.

### How to Use

```
STEP 1: Open case dashboard
        Cases → [Case Name]

STEP 2: Open Lumen menu
        [Tools] → [Lumen] → [Contradiction Analysis]

STEP 3: Review findings
        System scans all uploaded files for conflicts
        Results appear in 10–30 seconds (depends on case size)

STEP 4: Click contradiction
        Click any flagged issue → Highlights relevant evidence
        Example: Click "Officer arrival time mismatch" 
                 → Shows which files disagree & why
```

### Example Output

```
CONTRADICTIONS FOUND: 3

🚩 CONTRADICTION #1 | HIGH PRIORITY
CONFLICT: Officer arrival time discrepancy
- Police Report says: "Officer arrived at 14:50"
- Body Camera timestamp: 14:34 (16 MINUTES EARLIER)
- Witness interview: "I saw police arrive around 2:35"
- Dispatch log: "Unit 7 code 2 at 14:34"

SOURCES: 
  1. Police_Report.pdf (page 5, line 3)
  2. BodyCam_Video.mp4 (metadata: 14:34)
  3. Interview_Witness.mp3 (transcribed at 8:45)
  4. Dispatch_Log.txt (OCR'd from radio log)

SEVERITY: ⚠️ HIGH
→ This discrepancy damages officer credibility.
→ Expect opposing counsel to find this in discovery.

ACTION: Prep cross-examination on response time.

---

🚩 CONTRADICTION #2 | MEDIUM PRIORITY
CONFLICT: Weapon visibility
- Police report: "Suspect had no visible weapon"
- Body camera (14:37): Object detection flags weapon in hand
- Suspect description: "Hands empty"

SEVERITY: ⚠️ MEDIUM
→ Visual vs. verbal conflict. Could go either direction at trial.

ACTION: Request weapon forensics report. May explain discrepancy.

---

✓ CONSISTENCY CHECK #1 (No Issue)
Driver's license photo matches suspect caught on camera.
Sources: Driver_License.jpg + BodyCam_Video.mp4
Status: ✓ Consistent. Not a problem.
```

### When to Use

✅ Before deposition (know contradictions opposing counsel will find)
✅ Before trial preparation
✅ Weaknesses identification (where to focus cross)
✅ Settlement negotiations (credibility issues)
✅ Brady/Giglio checks (ensure full disclosure)

### ⚠️ Important Note

**Contradictions CAN mean**:
- Someone lied ← Most serious
- Honest mistake/misremembering ← Common
- Ambiguous evidence ← Often unavoidable

**They DON'T automatically mean guilt/innocence.**
→ Contradictions are starting points for investigation, not conclusions.

---

## Tool #3: Timeline Reconstruction 🔒 Professional+ Only

**What it does**: Auto-build a chronological timeline from all evidence timestamps.

### How to Use

```
STEP 1: Open case dashboard
        Cases → [Case Name]

STEP 2: Open Lumen menu
        [Tools] → [Lumen] → [Timeline Reconstruction]

STEP 3: Review visual timeline
        System extracts & orders all timestamps
        Results appear in 15–60 seconds (depends on # of files)

STEP 4: Interact with timeline
        Click any event → Shows source (which file/document)
        Hover over date → Zoom in to minute-level detail
```

### Example Output

```
TIMELINE RECONSTRUCTION COMPLETE
Case: Smith v. Doe, Incident Date: January 15, 2024
════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

13:45         ┌─ Victim calls friend
              │  Source: Phone Records.csv (cell tower log)

14:10         ├─ Suspect leaves work
              │  Source: Employee Exit Log.pdf (OCR)

14:20         ├─ Dispatch call received
              │  Source: Dispatch_Log.txt (radio transcript)
              │  Quote: "Unit 7, call received at 14:20"

14:30         ├─ Officer radio response
              │  Source: Police_Report.pdf (p.3)
              │  Quote: "Unit 7 responding at 14:30"

14:34    ⚠️   ├─ DISCREPANCY ALERT
         ⚠️   │  Video STARTS (body camera turns on)
              │  Source: BodyCam_Video.mp4 (metadata)
              │  NOTE: Police report claims 14:50 arrival
              │        Video shows camera already running
              │        INTERNAL CONTRADICTION!

14:37         ├─ Suspect visible on street
              │  Source: BodyCam_Video.mp4 (object detection)

14:45         ├─ Suspect enters building
              │  Source: Building_Security.mp4 (timestamp)

14:50    ⚠️   ├─ Police report claims arrival here
         ⚠️   │  Source: Police_Report.pdf (p.1)
              │  CONFLICT: Video shows events for 16 minutes before this

15:02         ├─ Officer enters building
              │  Source: BodyCam_Video.mp4 (video shows handoff)

15:15    ✓    ├─ Interview with suspect
              │  Source: Interview_Suspect.mp3
              │  Status: ✓ Timestamp consistent with video

15:45         ├─ Scene cleared
              │  Source: Police_Report.pdf (incident closed)

════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

SUMMARY:
- 11 time-stamped events identified
- 1 major discrepancy: Officer arrival time (police report vs. video)
- All other timestamps consistent
- Recommendation: Clarify officer arrival contradiction before trial
```

### When to Use

✅ Opening statement to jury (clear narrative)
✅ Cross-examination (identify timeline inconsistencies)
✅ Deposition prep (know what opposing counsel's timeline is)
✅ Settlement negotiation (illustrate sequence of events)
✅ Jury presentation (visual/compelling)

---

## Tool #4: Legal Tagging 🔒 Professional+ Only

**What it does**: Map evidence against NJ law and admissibility rules.

### How to Use

```
STEP 1: Open case dashboard
        Cases → [Case Name]

STEP 2: Open Lumen menu
        [Tools] → [Lumen] → [Legal Tagging]

STEP 3: Select jurisdiction
        Prompt: Choose your jurisdiction
        Options: New Jersey, Federal (USDC-NJ), etc.

STEP 4: Review legal assessment
        System analyzes all files against applicable law
        Results appear in 20–60 seconds
```

### Example Output

```
LEGAL TAGGING REPORT
Case: State v. Johnson
Jurisdiction: NEW JERSEY (with Federal cross-references)

EVIDENCE ADMISSIBILITY ASSESSMENT
════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

📹 BODY CAMERA VIDEO (BodyCam_Video.mp4)

✓ ADMISSIBLE UNDER NJ RULES
  └─ Not hearsay (silent video, no speaker)
  └─ Authenticated (chain of custody verified via hash)
  └─ Probative value not outweighed by prejudice

✓ CHAIN OF CUSTODY: SOLID
  └─ Original file hash: a1b2c3d4 (verified with Evident)
  └─ No alterations detected
  └─ NJ Rule of Evidence 901(a) satisfied

⚠️ WITNESS CREDIBILITY CONCERN
  └─ Officer arrival time contradicts police report
  └─ May be impeached: "Your report said 14:50, but video shows 14:34?"
  └─ Recommendation: Anticipate cross on this point

═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

📄 POLICE REPORT (Police_Report.pdf)

⚠️ POTENTIALLY PROBLEMATIC
  └─ Contains conclusions (not just facts)
  └─ NJ Rule of Evidence 701 (lay witness): Must be factual
  └─ Example problematic line: "Suspect appeared intoxicated"
     (Not observational; interpretation)

✓ ADMISSIBLE PORTIONS
  └─ Factual observations: Times, locations, people present
  └─ NOT admissible: Opinions ("appeared likely to flee")

═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

🎙️ WITNESS INTERVIEW (Interview_Witness.mp3)

✓ TESTIMONIAL ADMISSIBILITY
  └─ If witness testifies at trial: Transcript admits as corroborating
  └─ If witness unavailable: Hearsay issue (may need Confrontation exception)

⚠️ HEARSAY ALERT
  └─ If prosecution tries to play unconfronted witness statement
  └─ NJ Rule of Evidence 801–804 applies
  └─ Crawford v. Washington (2004): Witness must appear or explain absence
  └─ Recommendation: Verify witness will testify at trial

═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

⚖️ BRADY v. MARYLAND CHECK (Disclosure Obligations)

✓ NO BRADY VIOLATIONS DETECTED
  └─ No exculpatory evidence withheld from defense
  └─ Weapon not recovered (not exculpatory, neither party suppressed)
  └─ All discoverable materials appear to be accounted for

✓ GIGLIO IMPEACHMENT CHECK
  └─ No undisclosed credibility issues detected
  └─ Officer timing discrepancy is known by both parties
  └─ No hidden prior criminal history in files

════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

ADMISSIBILITY SUMMARY
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Body camera video:     ✓ ADMISSIBLE (strong)
Police report:         🟡 PARTIALLY (facts OK, opinions problematic)
Witness interview:     🟡 POTENTIALLY (depends on witness testimony)
Overall strength:      ✓ GOOD
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

COUNSEL RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Prep cross on officer arrival time (timing discrepancy)
2. Redact opinion language from police report before trial
3. Confirm witness will appear at trial (for interview admissibility)
4. Document chain of custody (already done, ✓ verified)
```

### When to Use

✅ Pre-trial motions (Rule 104 admissibility challenges)
✅ Discovery disputes (Brady/Giglio compliance)
✅ Witness prep (understand how evidence will be presented)
✅ Opposing counsel communication (show legal basis for exhibits)
✅ Draft trial exhibit list

---

## Tool #5: Full Analysis Report 🔒 Professional+ Only

**What it does**: Comprehensive 3–5 page case summary (all findings combined).

### How to Use

```
STEP 1: Open case dashboard
        Cases → [Case Name]

STEP 2: Open Lumen menu
        [Tools] → [Lumen] → [Full Analysis Report]

STEP 3: Choose format
        Options: PDF (email to client), Word (edit), HTML (internal)

STEP 4: Review generated report
        Takes 30–90 seconds
        System combines:
        • Evidence Summary (each file)
        • Timeline Reconstruction
        • Contradiction Analysis
        • Legal Tagging
        • Burden of Proof Assessment
        Into one cohesive document

STEP 5: Export
        [Download PDF] → Ready for client/court
```

### Example Output (Excerpt)

```
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
COMPREHENSIVE CASE ANALYSIS
State v. Johnson | 2024 | Generated: March 30, 2026
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
─────────────────
This matter involves a disputed timeline of events on January 15, 
2024. Analysis of body camera footage, police reports, witness 
interviews, and dispatch logs reveals significant findings:

FINDING #1: Officer Arrival Time Discrepancy (HIGH)
  Police report claims 14:50 arrival, but body camera 
  metadata shows 14:34 (16 minutes earlier).
  
FINDING #2: Visual Evidence of Weapon (MEDIUM)
  Body camera object detection flags weapon at 14:37.
  Police report states "no visible weapon."
  
FINDING #3: Overall Case Strength (ASSESSMENT)
  78% confidence prosecution case is strong (see Burden of Proof).

═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

EVIDENCE QUALITY ASSESSMENT
─────────────────────────────
BODY CAMERA:    ✓ HIGH quality (1080p, clear audio, timestamps accurate)
POLICE REPORT:  ✓ MEDIUM quality (factual but contains inconsistencies)
WITNESS INTS:   ✓ HIGH quality (clear audio, consistent statements)
DISPATCH LOG:   ✓ HIGH quality (official record, timestamps consistent)

═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

TIMELINE OF EVENTS
───────────────────
[As per Timeline Reconstruction, above]

═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

KEY FINDINGS
─────────────
1. Timeline evidence supports 14:34 arrival (not 14:50)
2. Weapon visibility contradicts police report
3. Witness is credible (delayed interview likely due to shock)
4. No Brady violations (full disclosure)
5. Chain of custody solid (hash-verified)

═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

BURDEN OF PROOF ASSESSMENT
──────────────────────────
Criminal Standard: "Beyond Reasonable Doubt"
Overall Strength: 78% CONFIDENCE (STRONG)

Prosecution factors: +25 points
 ✓ Video places suspect at scene
 ✓ Consistent witness account
 ✓ Timeline matches dispatch

Defense factors: -15 points
 ✗ Officer credibility issue (arrival time)
 ✗ Witness distance limited
 ✓ Weapon not recovered

═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR COUNSEL
────────────────────────────
1. Prep cross on officer arrival time (likely opposing counsel strategy)
2. Emphasize witness consistency (strength of case)
3. Consider weapon forensics report (may explain discrepancy)
4. Expect Brady challenges (none found, but document)
5. Anticipate jury instructions re: witness credibility

═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
```

### When to Use

✅ Client meetings (comprehensive summary)
✅ Settlement negotiations (high-level overview)
✅ Co-counsel review (shared understanding)
✅ Court filings (attach as background)
✅ Insurance claim presentation

---

## Tool #6: Burden of Proof Assessment 🔒 Professional+ Only

**What it does**: Rate your case strength (0–100% confidence) against applicable legal standard.

### How to Use

```
STEP 1: Open case dashboard
        Cases → [Case Name]

STEP 2: Open Lumen menu
        [Tools] → [Lumen] → [Burden of Proof]

STEP 3: Select legal standard
        Options:
        • Criminal: "Beyond reasonable doubt" (highest bar)
        • Civil: "Preponderance of evidence" (more likely than not)
        • Admin: "Clear and convincing evidence" (intermediate)
        • Provisional: "Probable cause" (lower threshold)

STEP 4: Review scoring
        Takes 20–45 seconds
        System analyzes all evidence against selected standard
```

### Example Output

```
BURDEN OF PROOF ASSESSMENT
Case: State v. Johnson | Criminal | Beyond Reasonable Doubt Standard
════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

OVERALL CASE STRENGTH: 78% CONFIDENCE ✓

Where:
100% = Absolute certainty (impossible in real cases)
75%  = "Beyond reasonable doubt" threshold (criminal)
50%  = Coin flip (equal evidence both ways)
0%   = Completely disproven

YOUR CASE: 78% → STRONG PROSECUTION CASE
────────────────────────────────────────

SCORING BREAKDOWN
─────────────────

✓ FACTORS SUPPORTING PROSECUTION: +25 points (Base 50)

  • Video places suspect at scene (high reliability)     +10 pts
    Evidence: Body camera, 1080p, clear face ID
    
  • Consistent witness account (corroborating)          +8 pts
    Evidence: Witness saw same suspect, same time
    
  • Timeline matches dispatch records                   +7 pts
    Evidence: Dispatch at 14:20, suspect visible 14:37

✗ FACTORS SUPPORTING DEFENSE: -15 points

  • Officer credibility issue (arrival time)            -12 pts
    Evidence: Report says 14:50, video shows 14:34
    Impact: Jury may question other officer statements
    
  • Witness distance limited (50+ feet away)            -8 pts
    Evidence: Lighting conditions unclear
    Impact: Could support "mistaken identity"
    
  ✓ Weapon not recovered (contextual)                   +5 pts
    Why defense +5: Suggests honest misidentification
    Why not -10: Doesn't prove innocence, could explain circumstances

─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

JURY PREDICTION MODEL
─────────────────────
Based on 78% confidence analysis:

Criminal Trial (12-person jury): 
  ~91% chance jury convicts (finding guilt beyond reasonable doubt)
  
Plea Negotiation Position:
  Prosecution strong enough to confidently reject defense plea offers
  Defense weak enough to pressure toward negotiated guilty plea
  
Settlement Recommendation:
  If prosecution: Push for conviction confidence, not negotiation
  If defense: Consider plea mitigation (mitigating factors)

─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

WEAKNESSES TO ADDRESS BEFORE TRIAL
──────────────────────────── ──────
1. Officer timing discrepancy (biggest weak point)
   Action: Prep cross-examination on arrival time
   
2. Witness distance/visibility (damages credibility)
   Action: Request lighting expert assessment
   
3. Weapon inconsistency (questions officer observation)
   Action: Request forensics report (did weapon exist?)

─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

ALTERNATIVE LEGAL STANDARDS
────────────────────────────
If this were a civil case (Preponderance standard):
  Confidence: 87% (higher, easier standard)
  
If this were an administrative proceeding:
  Confidence: 76% (slightly lower, but still strong)
```

### When to Use

✅ Bail hearing (show judge strength of prosecution case)
✅ Plea negotiation (compare your strength vs. opponent's)
✅ Jury instructions (understand what jury will focus on)
✅ Settlement valuation (calculate settlement range)
✅ Appeal assessment (identify weak points for appellate argument)

---

## Common Questions

### Q: Can I run multiple Lumen tools on the same case?

**A**: Yes! Run them in any order:
1. Evidence Summary (quick overview of each file)
2. Contradiction Analysis (find inconsistencies)
3. Timeline Reconstruction (build comprehensive timeline)
4. Legal Tagging (check admissibility)
5. Full Analysis Report (combine all findings)
6. Burden of Proof (evaluate case strength)

Each tool builds on previous findings.

---

### Q: How long does each tool take?

**A**: 
- Evidence Summary: 5–10 seconds (single file)
- Contradiction Analysis: 15–30 seconds (all files)
- Timeline Reconstruction: 20–60 seconds (depends on # events)
- Legal Tagging: 30–90 seconds (jurisdiction-specific)
- Full Analysis Report: 30–120 seconds (combines all)
- Burden of Proof: 20–45 seconds (standard-specific)

**Larger cases (100+ files) = longer processing.**

---

### Q: What if Lumen gives me a wrong answer?

**A**: Lumen is AI—it can hallucinate (make up facts):
- ✓ **VERIFY** timestamps yourself against actual files
- ✓ **CHECK** legal conclusions against statute
- ✓ **USE** Lumen as research assistant, not final authority

**Report accuracy issues** → Settings → Support → Contact us

---

### Q: Can I export Lumen results?

**A**: Yes:
- ✓ Full Analysis Report → Download as PDF/Word
- ✓ Individual tools → Click [Export] → PDF or CSV
- ✓ Burden score → Include in settlement letters

**Premium+ users**: API access to Lumen results (developers)

---

### Q: What if Ollama is down?

**A**: Lumen requires the Ollama LLM backend:
- ✓ If unavailable: "Lumen service temporarily unavailable" message
- ✓ Wait time: Usually 30 seconds to 2 minutes
- ✓ If persists: Contact [support@evident.icu](mailto:support@evident.icu)

---

### Q: Can I customize Lumen prompts?

**A**: 
- 🆓 **Demo/Starter/Professional**: No (fixed AI mode)
- 🏢 **Enterprise only**: Yes, custom AI model with your prompts

---

## Tips & Tricks

### Pro Tip #1: Run Tools in Sequence
```
Timeline first (get the order of events)
  ↓
Contradiction Analysis (see what contradicts timeline)
  ↓
Burden of Proof (assess final case strength)
```

### Pro Tip #2: Use Lumen for Deposition Prep
```
1. Run Evidence Summary on witness interview
   → Extract key statements
   
2. Run Contradiction Analysis
   → See what witness contradicts in other files
   
3. Prep questions to clarify contradictions
```

### Pro Tip #3: Use Full Analysis Report for Settlements
```
1. Run all 6 tools
   
2. Generate Full Analysis Report
   
3. Send to opposing counsel
   → Shows you've done thorough analysis
   → Often clarifies case worth
   → Moves settlement calls forward
```

---

## Support & Troubleshooting

| Issue | Solution |
|-------|----------|
| "Lumen tools grayed out" | Upgrade tier (Professional+ only for tools 2–6) |
| "Result doesn't seem right" | Cross-check with source files; Lumen is AI-assisted, not AI-final |
| "Lumen very slow" | Wait 2 min; if persists, try again later |
| "Ollama unavailable" | Backend service down; try again in 30 sec |
| "Not finding contradictions I see" | Lumen finds pattern-based conflicts, not human judgment |

**Email support**: [support@evident.icu](mailto:support@evident.icu)
**Chat support** (Premium+): In-dashboard chat widget

---

**Version 1.0 | March 30, 2026**
Questions? Email us at support@evident.icu or use the in-dashboard chat.