Petition Audit

1. Intake — Receive the petition letter and source documents
2. Claim Extraction — Extract every factual claim from the letter
3. Verification — Check each claim against source documents and web sources
4. Legal Review — Check for legal errors, missing elements, criterion misapplication
5. Consistency Check — Cross-check facts across the letter for internal contradictions
6. Report — Produce the audit report with findings and severity ratings

Phase 1: Intake

Required inputs:

1. The petition letter — the drafted support letter (from o1-petition-narrative, eb1a-petition-narrative, or niw-petition-narrative)
2. The source registry — if included in the petition package (Part 2)
3. The document index — from document-summary-arrangement
4. Source documents — the actual exhibits referenced in the letter (or access to them)
5. Petition type — O-1A, EB-1A, or NIW

Optional: 6. Prior case-strength-assessor output — if the team ran /case-strength-assessor before drafting, compare the draft's emphasis to that assessment (e.g., whether weak criteria were over-argued).

Phase 2: Claim Extraction

Go through the letter paragraph by paragraph. For every sentence, identify and extract each factual claim — any statement that asserts something is true.

Types of claims to extract:

Phase 3: Verification

For each extracted claim, perform ONE of these checks:

3A: Document Verification

If the claim cites an exhibit:

• Read the actual exhibit
• Verify the claim matches what the exhibit says — exact wording, exact numbers
• Flag any discrepancy: paraphrase that changes meaning, rounded numbers that are misleading, dates that don't match

3B: Web Source Verification

If the claim cites a web source:

• Visit the URL (if still live)
• Verify the exact quote matches
• Check the date — has the data been updated since it was retrieved?
• Flag if the URL is dead or the content has changed

3C: Cross-Document Verification

If the claim involves a fact that appears in multiple documents:

• Check all documents that reference the same fact
• Flag any inconsistencies (e.g., title differs between resume and HR letter, dates don't align)

3D: Unsupported Claim Detection

If the claim has NO citation:

• Flag it as UNSUPPORTED
• Check if the claim could be supported by an existing exhibit that wasn't cited
• If no exhibit supports it, flag as REQUIRES SOURCE

3E: Legal Citation Verification

If the claim cites a legal standard, policy alert, or case:

• Verify the citation is correct (right case name, right year, right holding)
• Verify the quote is accurate
• Verify the cited authority actually supports the argument being made

Phase 4: Legal Review

Check for legal errors and criterion misapplication:

For O-1A / EB-1A:

For NIW:

For All Petition Types:

Phase 5: Consistency Check

Cross-check these facts across the entire letter:

Phase 6: Audit Report

Save as workspace/<matter-name>/audit/petition_audit.md:

# Petition Audit Report
# Petition Type: [O-1A / EB-1A / NIW]
# Generated: [Date]
# Letter audited: [file path]

## SUMMARY

| Category | Critical | Warning | Info |
|----------|----------|---------|------|
| Factual accuracy | X | X | X |
| Unsupported claims | X | X | X |
| Legal errors | X | X | X |
| Consistency | X | X | X |
| **Total** | **X** | **X** | **X** |

**Verdict:** [READY FOR REVIEW / NEEDS FIXES / MAJOR ISSUES]

- READY FOR REVIEW: 0 critical findings, attorney can review and sign
- NEEDS FIXES: 1+ critical or 3+ warnings, must be addressed before filing
- MAJOR ISSUES: structural legal errors or fabricated claims, needs rework

---

## CRITICAL FINDINGS (must fix before filing)

### [C-1] [Title]
- **Location:** [Section, paragraph, sentence]
- **Claim in letter:** "[exact text from the letter]"
- **Problem:** [what's wrong]
- **Evidence checked:** [what document/source was checked]
- **Recommendation:** [how to fix]

---

## WARNINGS (should fix)

### [W-1] [Title]
- **Location:** [Section, paragraph]
- **Issue:** [description]
- **Recommendation:** [how to fix]

---

## INFO (attorney should be aware)

### [I-1] [Title]
- **Note:** [description]

---

## CLAIM-BY-CLAIM VERIFICATION LOG

| # | Claim | Source | Verified? | Finding |
|---|-------|-------|-----------|---------|
| 1 | "acceptance rate of 10-11%" | Exhibit 20 | Yes | Matches exact quote in exhibit |
| 2 | "50,000 monthly users" | Exhibit 34 (pitch deck) | Warning | Pitch deck says "50,000 total users" not "monthly" — potential overstatement |
| 3 | "founded in 2002" | Web Source 3 | Yes | Confirmed on stevieawards.com |
| ... | ... | ... | ... | ... |

---

## LEGAL CHECKLIST

### [O-1A / EB-1A]
- [ ] At least 3 criteria argued with evidence
- [ ] Each criterion addresses all sub-elements
- [ ] Step 2 totality argument present (EB-1A)
- [ ] "Continue to work" addressed (EB-1A)
- [ ] "Substantially benefit U.S." addressed (EB-1A)
- [ ] Advisory opinion included (O-1A)
- [ ] Field of endeavor consistent throughout
- [ ] Every criterion connects to the stated field
- [ ] No criterion relies solely on self-serving evidence

### [NIW]
- [ ] All three Dhanasar prongs addressed
- [ ] National importance backed by government sources
- [ ] Future plans are specific and credible
- [ ] Letter is in first person
- [ ] Government statistics are recent (within 3 years)
- [ ] Each source connects to petitioner's specific work

### [All]
- [ ] Every factual claim has a source (exhibit or web source)
- [ ] All exhibit references are correct and sequential
- [ ] No internal contradictions (dates, titles, amounts)
- [ ] No unsupported superlatives
- [ ] Beneficiary name consistent throughout
- [ ] No fabricated or embellished claims

Severity Ratings

Best Practices

• Read the ENTIRE letter before starting the audit — understand the overall argument first
• Check numbers with extreme precision — "50,000 monthly users" vs. "50,000 total users" is a critical difference
• Date discrepancies between documents are one of the most common issues — check every date
• Title discrepancies (resume vs. HR letter vs. petition) are the second most common — check every title
• If a claim sounds too good to be true, it probably needs verification
• The audit should catch things the drafter missed — approach with skepticism, not trust
• A clean audit gives the attorney confidence to sign — that's the goal