Extract Client Intake Facts Divorce Scenario 02

Skill: Extract Client Intake Facts — Divorce/Family Law Scenario (Variant)

2. Failure modes the skill is correcting

• Treating an unsupported separate-property assertion as established when the file does not show a clear source-of-funds trail
• Flattening contested-divorce facts into a narrative instead of separating characterization, timing, control, and liquidity facts
• Missing dissipation signals embedded in scattered expense, transfer, and account activity references
• Overlooking whether an asserted home-retention goal is feasible given refinance, buyout, or debt-service facts
• Failing to distinguish what is stated in the intake materials from what still needs verification
• Omitting follow-up facts needed for tracing, valuation, and preservation

3. Legal frameworks / domain conventions that apply

• Use the family-law intake lens centered on marital vs. separate characterization, commingling, tracing, appreciation, dissipation, maintenance-relevant facts, retirement-account issues, and digital-asset transfers
• Treat an asset claimed as separate as contested unless the source materials show a defensible paper trail for acquisition with separate funds or other recognized separate-source proof
• Treat a transfer of digital assets shortly before or during separation as a timing and concealment-risk fact that may warrant tracing, preservation, and account-access follow-up
• Treat suspicious business or personal spending as a dissipation issue when the facts suggest non-marital purpose, concealment, or unilateral depletion
• When the client states a priority such as keeping the home, frame that goal against available liquidity, debt capacity, title, and buyout/refinance constraints
• Use general divorce-property doctrines and the governing local family-law framework reflected in the source materials; do not invent unsupported statutory conclusions
• If a legal proposition is stated, identify the controlling authority or family-law doctrine supporting it rather than offering a bare conclusion

4. Analytical scaffolds

• First separate the facts into: parties, timeline, property, debts, income, transfers, expenses, children/household facts if any, and stated objectives
• For each asset or account, ask:
  • what it is
  • how it was acquired
  • whose name controls it
  • when it was acquired or transferred
  • what evidence supports separate vs. marital characterization
  • whether tracing is possible from the current record
• For each transfer or withdrawal, ask:
  • date or relative timing
  • source and destination
  • amount or other scale from the source materials
  • whether the timing coincides with separation, dispute escalation, or preservation concerns
  • whether the fact suggests concealment, dissipation, or ordinary household administration
• For each suspicious spending pattern, aggregate the identified categories into one dissipation summary while preserving the component items used to reach it
• For a home-retention objective, identify:
  • equity and debt facts
  • likely refinance or buyout constraints
  • assets the client appears willing to trade
  • whether the current record supports feasibility or only a stated preference
• For every contested fact, preserve the distinction between:
  • client assertion
  • documentary support
  • gap requiring follow-up
• If more than one asset, transfer, account, or period appears in the materials, enumerate them explicitly before analysis and keep each item separate in the memo

5. Vertical / structural / temporal relationships (only if applicable)

• Map ownership and control vertically: account holder, beneficial owner, titled owner, user, signatory, and source of funds
• Map timing horizontally: premarital acquisition, marriage-period acquisition, pre-separation transfer, post-separation conduct, and current status
• Link related records across documents when one source explains, qualifies, or contradicts another
• Flag any mismatch between a stated characterization and the surrounding chronology, tax treatment, account title, or transfer trail
• Where the same asset appears in multiple forms, connect the forms rather than repeating the fact in isolation
• Highlight if a transfer precedes a filing, demand, or known dispute milestone by a short interval, but state the timing using the record’s own dates rather than extrapolation

6. Output structure conventions

• Produce a structured key-facts memo, not an argument memo and not a chronology only
• Use conventional headings such as:
  • Matter overview
  • Parties and relationship history
  • Key dates and procedural posture
  • Assets and liabilities
  • Transfers and account activity
  • Dissipation / concealment indicators
  • Client objectives and constraints
  • Open questions / follow-up needed
• Under assets and liabilities, separate each item into a discrete entry with characterization, control, source-of-funds clues, and unresolved issues
• Include a concise dissipation summary table when suspicious spending or depletion appears; preserve component categories and then state the combined concern
• Include a short transfer timeline when asset movement or digital-asset activity appears; pair each entry with the follow-up it requires
• Use an explicit status label for each key fact, such as confirmed / stated / disputed / unclear, so the reader can tell support level at a glance
• Keep quotations minimal; prefer paraphrase unless the wording itself is important
• End with a focused follow-up section that identifies what information, documents, or confirmations are still needed to complete tracing, characterization, or feasibility analysis