Construction-defect opinions scale from the units you inspected to the building you didn't — and that extrapolation is where the cross lives. Add water-intrusion causation without protocol testing and repair costs without provenance, and opposing counsel has a full afternoon. This AI examiner runs that cross out loud and scores you on the post-2023 FRE 702 rubric.
Start a free construction defect mock deposition → How the expert trainer worksDefect litigation is a battle of extrapolations: a handful of destructively tested locations standing in for hundreds of units, a staining pattern standing in for a tested leak path, a unit-cost table standing in for a bid. Each proxy is defensible with methodology — and indefensible without it.
The examiner in this trainer attacks the proxies in order: sampling plan, testing protocol, baseline definition (code, contract, or custom), and cost provenance — the same order the real cross will use.
Four units inspected, one hundred twenty opined on — with no statistical sampling methodology behind the leap.
A leak-path opinion from staining patterns — no ASTM E2128-style investigation, no water testing of the claimed path.
The measure of "defect" migrating between building code, plans and specs, and "industry standard" — whichever supports the opinion at that moment.
Full replacement priced where a recognized repair standard exists — betterment and useful-life offsets never addressed.
Unit costs blending contractor quotes, published data, and judgment — with no line-item trail back to a source.
Years of deferred maintenance and original construction defects never separated in the causation story.
The examiner locks in your building-wide opinion, then makes you show the arithmetic that got you there.
Why this lands: Extrapolation from targeted locations is defensible — courts accept statistical and even judgmental sampling when the methodology is disclosed and justified. But if you can't name your sampling approach and its basis on the spot, the building-wide opinion collapses into anecdote. The trainer makes that answer automatic.
You enter your discipline — envelope, structural, geotechnical, cost estimation — and a realistic AI examiner cross-examines you out loud on sampling methodology, testing protocol, baseline definition, and cost provenance. Every session ends with a 5-axis FRE 702/Daubert scorecard. Unlimited private reps.
Extrapolation without a disclosed sampling plan, water-intrusion causation without protocol testing (ASTM E2128 is the reference point the cross will use), defect baselines that shift between code, contract, and custom, and repair costs without line-item provenance or betterment analysis.
Yes — when the sampling plan is disclosed, justified, and applied consistently. Courts have accepted statistical sampling in defect cases repeatedly. What fails is "the units I saw were representative" with nothing behind it. The trainer drills articulating your sampling basis under pressure.
Your first full AI mock deposition is free — no credit card. After that: a $99 one-time 30-day pass with unlimited sessions before a specific deposition, or Expert Pro at $39/mo if you are deposed regularly.
Yes. Sessions are private by default and are not shared with retaining counsel, opposing counsel, or anyone else. This is educational deposition practice, not legal advice — always follow the guidance of retaining counsel, and don't enter confidential case identifiers.
Your first full AI mock deposition is free — no credit card. Enter your field, get cross-examined out loud, and read your Daubert scorecard in about ten minutes.
Start your free mock deposition → Compare training options