The AI Cleanup Pass
You are preparing a 900-page transcript of a complex commercial trial in Arkansas. To speed production, you run your rough draft through a transcription-cleanup tool that uses a large language model to fix punctuation, expand abbreviations, and 'smooth' awkward phrasing. You then proofread the output. During proofreading you notice that in three places the tool changed a witness's answer from 'I don't recall' to 'I don't remember' and, in one place, changed 'not' to 'now' in a damages figure. You catch all four. You fix them. The transcript is certified and delivered. Six months later, opposing counsel in a collateral proceeding obtains the transcript and compares it to the audio backup, which you also retained. They allege the transcript was 'AI-generated' and unreliable.
1. Evaluate the reporter's use of the cleanup tool against transcript-preparation and recordkeeping obligations.
Read the worked answer
The core obligation is that the certified transcript must accurately reflect what was said. Using a cleanup tool for punctuation and abbreviation expansion is defensible only if it does not alter substance, and the reporter remains fully responsible for every word. Here the tool altered substance in four places, including a negation in a damages figure, which is exactly the kind of change that destroys reliability. Catching and fixing them before certification is the saving fact, but the process created avoidable risk. A defensible workflow restricts the tool to formatting-only functions, requires a full human comparison against the audio for any tool-touched passage, and documents the review. The reporter should be able to show that the certified text matches the audio, not merely that a human glanced at the output.
2. How should the reporter respond to the allegation of unreliability in the collateral proceeding?
Read the worked answer
Respond factually and without defensiveness. Produce the audio backup and the certified transcript; demonstrate that the four discrepancies were caught and corrected before certification and that the certified text matches the audio. Explain the workflow: what the tool was permitted to do, what human review occurred, and that the reporter is responsible for the final text. Do not characterize the transcript as 'AI-generated'; it is the reporter's certified transcript, produced with tools the reporter controlled and verified. If the audio confirms the certified text, the allegation fails on the facts. The reporter should also review whether any uncorrected tool changes slipped through and disclose any found.
3. What recordkeeping should the reporter have maintained to make this defensible?
Read the worked answer
Retain the audio backup, the pre-cleanup rough draft, the tool's output, and the final certified text, with a log of the review steps and any corrections made. A correction log showing the four changes caught and fixed is powerful evidence of diligence. The reporter should also have a written policy limiting the tool to formatting functions and requiring audio comparison for substantive passages. Without that paper trail, the reporter is left asserting diligence with nothing to back it up.