Use cases · Litigation support

Cases outlast careers. The record shouldn't.

Environmental cases turn on what happened decades ago, recorded by people who have long since moved on. Statvis builds a chronology from every document in the record, cites each claim to its page and passage, surfaces where sources disagree, and backs your experts with forensic chemistry.

The other side will check every claim. So will the court.

The facts that decide an environmental case are usually already in the production. The work is finding them, dating them correctly and showing exactly where each one came from.

Productions too large to read twice. Decades of reports, lab certificates, permits and letters, and the deciding sentence could be on any page.
Document dates aren't event dates. A 2008 report describing a 1985 release is evidence about 1985. A chronology built on filing dates gets the sequence wrong.
Sources that disagree. Different consultants, different decades, different numbers for the same well. Those conflicts matter, and they are easy to miss.
Experts who arrive late. By the time an expert is retained, the record has to be understood, organized and traceable, or their opinion rests on what they had time to read.

What counsel and experts get, built from the record itself.

A cited chronology

Every spill, ownership change, investigation and remedial step, dated by when it happened and cited to the document and page.

Site history →

Answers cited to the passage

Plain-language questions answered from the complete record, not a shortlist of likely matches, with the passage boxed on the page.

Research →

Contradictions surfaced

Where two sources disagree, both are shown with their citations, so your team decides which is the primary record.

How citations work →

Lab data to the cell

Results from scanned reports turned into data, each value traced to its page and cell, so a number in an expert report leads back to the certificate.

Lab data →

Forensic source attribution

PFAS, PAH and salt fingerprints that separate sources from each other and from background, sample by sample.

Forensics →

Expert support

Forensic chemists and data specialists who can work the matter with you, under a scoped statement of work.

Expert services →

See it on the case file itself.

From a stack of documents to a dated chronology.

Statvis reads every document and pulls out the events it describes, then places each one on the date it happened, not the date it was written. Filter to one incident, one well or one operator and the sources come with it.

Ask the record. Get the passage.

Ask what was known about a release and when. Statvis searches the full record and answers with the exact passage boxed on the source page. Where reports disagree, it shows both rather than quietly picking one.

Evidence down to the cell.

Decades of lab tables in scanned reports become structured data. Each value keeps its units, detection limit and qualifier, and links back to the page and cell it came from, so opposing experts can check it in one click.

Test the source theory with chemistry.

Hierarchical clustering groups samples by their full chemical profile. Click a cluster to see its fingerprint and where those wells sit on the map. Different sources tend to carry different signatures, which helps an expert test whether the contamination came from one party or several.

In practice: one buried map label at a Superfund site

What courts ask of expert evidence.

Courts on both sides of the border look hard at the facts an expert relies on and how the expert reached the opinion.

Canada

A duty to the court

In White Burgess Langille Inman v. Abbott and Haliburton Co. (2015 SCC 23), the Supreme Court of Canada held that expert witnesses have a duty to the court to give fair, objective and non-partisan opinion evidence, and that an expert unable or unwilling to meet it can be excluded.

Source: Supreme Court of Canada judgment, 2015 SCC 23.

United States, federal courts

Sufficient facts, reliable methods

Federal Rule of Evidence 702, amended in response to Daubert and again in 2023, requires the proponent to show it is more likely than not that the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data and reflects a reliable application of reliable methods.

Source: Fed. R. Evid. 702 and its committee notes.

Statvis doesn't form the opinion. It gives the expert and counsel a complete, cited view of the facts, and keeps the method and data behind every forensic result so they can be disclosed and checked.

Statvis supports defensible work grounded in documents. It does not provide legal advice, and it does not make final responsible-party determinations unless that work is explicitly scoped in a statement of work. The summaries above are general information, not legal advice.