Nobody attacks your arithmetic — they attack where the numbers came from. The growth rate you "found reasonable." The projections management handed you. The assumption counsel told you to make. This AI examiner runs the assumption-by-assumption cross out loud and scores you on the post-2023 FRE 702 rubric — before opposing counsel builds the record for their Daubert motion.
Start a free forensic accounting mock deposition → How the expert trainer worksDamages models are assumption stacks. Opposing counsel's job at your deposition is to make you admit, one layer at a time, that the load-bearing assumptions were supplied by counsel, taken from interested management, or chosen from the favorable end of every published range — until the model reads as advocacy arithmetic.
The examiner in this trainer runs exactly that sequence: assignment scope, data provenance, method selection, growth and discount inputs, alternative-cause isolation — the full lost-profits cross.
The but-for world — contract renewal, market share, pricing — assumed per retaining counsel's instruction, without independent verification.
Projections and internal financials from the damaged party used as inputs without testing them against externals.
Before-and-after used without checking whether yardstick or market methods converge — or explaining why they were rejected.
A perpetual double-digit growth assumption supported by experience rather than market analysis.
Market downturn, new competition, or management decisions never separated from the alleged wrongful conduct.
One footing error or double-counted period, surfaced mid-deposition, impeaches the entire model's reliability.
The examiner establishes what you were asked to do — then makes every causation-adjacent assumption trace back to the people paying you.
Why this lands: Assuming liability is legitimate — but if you can't crisply separate the assumptions you were given from the analysis you independently performed and verified, the jury hears "the number is whatever counsel asked for." The trainer drills that separation until you deliver it cleanly under pressure.
You enter your discipline and engagement type — lost profits, business valuation, fraud tracing — and a realistic AI examiner cross-examines you out loud on assignment scope, data provenance, method selection, growth and discount assumptions, and alternative causes. Every session ends with a 5-axis FRE 702/Daubert scorecard. Unlimited private reps.
Counsel-supplied assumptions presented as analysis, reliance on unverified management projections, failure to consider alternative causes of loss, unsupported growth and discount rates, and method selection that can't be defended against alternatives. Courts applying post-2023 FRE 702 focus on whether a reliable method was reliably applied — assumption attacks target exactly that.
They help if you can show your work followed them — and hurt if the cross reveals gaps between the standards you claim and the file you built. The trainer's examiner will test whether you can walk from your professional standards to this engagement's actual workpapers without daylight.
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