Proposition Analysis is (still) a unique feature of MasterFile. It enables investigators, journalists and academic researchers, who are not a party to the issue under investigation to assess the impact of facts as “for” or “against” different parties or propositions/hypotheses rather than just “for us” or “against us” as is generally the case in litigation.
In a fraud or criminal investigation for example, there may be several suspects and facts must be assessed as “for” or “against” each suspect’s innocence rather than “for us” or “against us”. Similarly facts in an academic research project need to be assessed as “for” or “against” the various competing hypotheses or propositions under consideration in the project or thesis.
Proposition Analysis replaces MasterFile’s traditional impact assessments for the following items:
- Facts and chronology events.
- Witness (player) assessments.
- Issue assessments.
- Document and extracts assessments.
In the fact profile below, the “Impact assessment” and “Impacted party” fields are highlighted. Notice that the default position for “Impacted party” is “Us” so that unless you need Proposition Analysis, it doesn’t affect how you normally use MasterFile.
To assess a fact for or against another party, proposition or hypothesis, simply select the party from the “Impacted party” field’s player list pop up. Shown below is a fact that has been assessed as “Strongly for” “Arcade Towers”.
To asses your facts for or against competing hypotheses or propositions under consideration in an investigation or academic research project, create “Player” keywords for each hypothesis or proposition, such as “Global warming is due to solar activity”, and use these in the corresponding fields above.
You can quickly and easily review all the facts that relevant to a particular party or proposition from the “facts by Impacted Party / Hypothesis” view. Under each impacted party/proposition listed, the facts are grouped by their impact to the party/proposition.
If a fact, let’s call it the “established fact”, impacts competing hypotheses or propositions it is handled a little differently. First, it should be set out with all the supporting evidence and assigned an impact assessment of “Not applicable”. Then, use the “Create Fact” button to make an “assessed” fact for each hypothesis or proposition the “established fact” impacts. Finally, assess and set out in each why the “established fact” impacts the hypothesis. This method lets you set out all the evidence in one place, i.e. the “established fact”, as each assessed fact links back to it.
Be more effective with MasterFile – a true, small-firm platform for simple document management through complex litigation that replaces CaseMap, Concordance, & Relativity, etc.