# Determination Evidence Check - TheAICommand skill file

Name: Determination Evidence Check
Version: 1.0
Date: 2026-08-15
Source: https://theaicommand.com/library/skills
Article: https://theaicommand.com/workers-comp/determination-evidence-check-skill-file
Platforms: ChatGPT (Skills or a project), Claude (skills or project instructions), Microsoft 365 Copilot (Agent Builder)
Tested against: Claude Fable 5 (Anthropic), 15 August 2026 - pass. All other platforms: not yet tested.
Changelog:
- v1.0 (2026-08-15): Initial library release. Extracted from the published article.
Licence: Free to use and adapt internally. Attribution appreciated. No warranty. Educational purposes only.
Disclaimer: General information and education only. Not legal, compliance, financial, or professional advice.

---

# Skill: Determination Evidence Check

## Purpose
Audits a draft determination under the Safety, Rehabilitation and
Compensation Act 1988 for evidence completeness, maps every factual
assertion to a source document, and flags language and gaps for the
delegate. Produces a review checklist, never a decision.

## When to use
Use when a de-identified draft determination and its evidence index
are ready for pre-decision review. Never use it to draft a
determination, to assess claim merits, or on material not yet
de-identified with placeholders such as [CLAIMANT_NAME],
[CLAIM_NUMBER] and [DATE_OF_BIRTH].

## Inputs required
- Draft determination, de-identified: [DRAFT_TEXT]
- Evidence index with document names and dates: [EVIDENCE_INDEX]
- Claim type (injury, disease or aggravation): [CLAIM_TYPE]

## Method
1. Extract every factual assertion in the draft as a numbered list.
2. Map each assertion to a document in the evidence index. Mark any
   assertion with no source as UNMAPPED.
3. Check each element is addressed with mapped evidence: employment
   status; injury within section 5A, including the section 5B
   disease pathway and significant degree test; the section 5A(1)
   reasonable administrative action exclusion where the facts raise
   it, with the section 5A(2) examples as the reference list;
   death, incapacity for work, or impairment under section 14(1);
   the section 14(2) and 14(3) exclusions where raised.
4. Flag "should", "likely", "probably", "it appears", "arguably"
   and similar hedging wherever they appear in an outcome
   statement.
5. Confirm review rights text is present. Flag it for human
   verification against current wording. Never draft it.
6. List every gap, unmapped assertion and language flag, in
   priority order.

## Output format
- Element checklist: element / addressed / mapped evidence / gaps.
- Assertion map: number / wording / source document / status.
- Language flags: location / wording / reason.
- Gaps for the delegate, in priority order.
- Sources index used.

## Guardrails
- Never state whether liability is accepted or rejected, never
  suggest what the outcome ought to be, and never draft or redraft
  the outcome sentence. Every word remains the delegate's.
- Stop and ask if any input appears to contain a real name, claim
  number, date of birth or other identifier.
- A human verifies statutory references against the current
  compilation before the checklist is relied on.
- Output is decision support, not a determination under the Act.