D2-4: Peer Verification Protocol | NovaStream Matter Dashboard

Purpose

This protocol guides your review of a classmate's AI-assisted work product. The exercise develops your verification skills while giving you experience reviewing others' AI-assisted work - a task you will regularly perform as a supervisor in practice.

Instructions

You have been assigned to review a classmate's work product from the NovaStream matter. Your classmate used AI tools for some portion of this work. Your task is to:

Identify any errors, gaps, or concerns in the work product
Assess whether AI was appropriately used for the task
Provide constructive feedback

Complete this protocol and submit it by the due date.

Part 1: Document Information

Document Details

Document Reviewed:

Author:

Date of Review:

Reviewer:

Part 2: Initial Assessment

Before conducting detailed verification, provide your initial impressions:

2.1 Overall Quality Assessment

Excellent - Ready for client/court with minimal revision

Good - Solid work requiring some revision

Adequate - Meets basic requirements but needs significant revision

Needs Improvement - Substantial errors or gaps

2.2 Apparent AI Usage Based on the Tool Use Statement and document characteristics, what AI tools appear to have been used?

2.3 Initial Concerns Note any concerns that jumped out on first reading:

Part 3: Citation and Authority Verification

For each legal authority cited in the document, verify accuracy:

Citation Verification Table

Citation	Verified?	Issues Found
	Yes No N/A
	Yes No N/A
	Yes No N/A
	Yes No N/A
	Yes No N/A

3.1 Citation Verification Method

How did you verify citations? (Check all that apply)

Pulled cases on Westlaw

Pulled cases on Lexis

Used AI case verification feature

Checked against course materials

Other:

3.2 Citation Errors Found Describe any citation errors (wrong cite, incorrect pinpoint, case doesn't exist, etc.):

3.3 Parenthetical/Holding Accuracy

For cases where the document provides parenthetical descriptions or states holdings, did you verify the characterization is accurate?

Yes, verified - all accurate

Yes, verified - found inaccuracies (describe below)

Did not verify parentheticals

Inaccuracies found:

Part 4: Factual Accuracy

4.1 Cross-Reference with Record

Did you verify factual statements against the underlying record (depositions, payroll records, Slack logs, etc.)?

Yes, comprehensive verification

Yes, spot-checked key facts

No, did not verify facts

4.2 Factual Errors or Unsupported Statements

List any statements that are inaccurate or not supported by the record:

Statement	Issue	Record Citation (if available)

4.3 Missing Facts Are there important facts from the record that should have been included but were not?

Part 5: Legal Analysis Assessment

5.1 Legal Framework

Is the applicable legal framework correctly stated?

Yes

Partially - some errors or omissions

No - significant errors

Explain any concerns:

5.2 Application of Law to Facts

Is the application of law to facts logical and well-supported?

Yes

Partially

No

Explain any concerns:

5.3 Counter-Arguments

Does the document address obvious counter-arguments?

Yes, thoroughly

Yes, but superficially

No

Missing counter-arguments:

Part 6: AI Tool Assessment

6.1 Tool Selection Appropriateness

Based on the author's Tool Use Statement, was AI an appropriate choice for this task?

Yes - AI was well-suited for this task

Partially - AI was appropriate for some aspects but not others

No - A different approach would have been more appropriate

Explain your assessment:

6.2 AI Limitations Observed

Did you observe any errors or limitations that appear attributable to AI use? (Check all that apply)

Hallucinated citations

Incorrect case holdings

Outdated legal information

Generic analysis lacking NJ-specific nuance

Factual errors in summarizing documents

Structural or organizational issues

Tone/voice inconsistencies

Other:

Describe specific examples:

6.3 Verification Gaps

Did the author adequately verify AI outputs?

Yes - appropriate verification performed

Partially - some verification gaps

No - significant verification failures

Cannot assess from available information

Explain:

Part 7: Professional Responsibility Considerations

7.1 Confidentiality

Were there any confidentiality concerns with how AI was used?

No concerns identified

Potential concerns (describe below)

Concerns:

7.2 Competence

Does the work product demonstrate competent understanding of the subject matter, or does it appear the author relied on AI without sufficient independent judgment?

Demonstrates competence

Concerns about over-reliance on AI

Explain:

7.3 Candor

Are there any statements that could be misleading to a court or opposing party?

No concerns

Potential concerns (describe below)

Concerns:

Part 8: Constructive Feedback

8.1 Strengths What did the author do well?

8.2 Areas for Improvement What specific improvements would you recommend?

8.3 AI Usage Recommendations Based on your review, what recommendations would you make about AI tool usage for similar tasks in the future?

Part 9: Summary Assessment

9.1 Error Count

Category	Count
Citation errors
Factual errors
Legal analysis errors
Missing information
AI-attributable errors

9.2 Overall Assessment Provide a 2-3 sentence overall assessment of the work product and the author's AI-assisted process:

9.3 Verification Difficulty

How difficult was it to verify this work product?

Easy - straightforward verification

Moderate - required significant effort

Difficult - verification was challenging

What made verification easy or difficult?

Part 10: Reflection

10.1 Your Verification Process Describe the process you used to verify this work product. What tools did you use? How long did it take?

10.2 Lessons Learned What did you learn from this exercise that will inform your own AI-assisted work?

10.3 Supervision Implications If you were supervising an associate who submitted this work, what feedback would you provide?

Certification

I certify that I have reviewed the assigned work product in good faith and that this protocol reflects my honest assessment.

Signature

Date

Submission Instructions

Complete all sections of this protocol
Attach any supporting documentation (e.g., printouts showing citation errors)
Submit via Canvas by the due date
A copy will be shared with the work product author for their learning