Forensic neuropsychology cross-examination has professionalized: opposing counsel arrives knowing the AACN and NAN position statements on performance-validity testing, the norm-selection literature, and the mild-TBI recovery consensus. This AI examiner runs that modern cross out loud — effort testing first — and scores you on the post-2023 FRE 702 rubric.
Start a free neuropsychology mock deposition → How the expert trainer worksNo other expert discipline has an internal literature this explicit about forensic practice standards — which means the cross-examiner can impeach you with your own field's position statements. Validity testing, norm selection, premorbid estimation: each has published standards a prepared attorney will read to you.
The examiner in this trainer knows that playbook. It opens where real crosses now open — what validity measures you gave and what they showed — and works outward through norms, premorbid method, and the recovery literature.
No stand-alone performance-validity measures — or failed validity indicators explained away in a footnote while the deficit scores stand.
Age, education, or demographic norms chosen (or defaulted) in a way that moves scores across the impairment line.
Premorbid functioning estimated by a method you can't defend — or a best-performance cherry-pick that inflates the decline.
A persistent-deficit opinion built on outlier studies, opposite the recovery-trajectory consensus literature the examiner will quote.
Test selection that varies case to case in a pattern that tracks which side retained you.
Hedging on producing raw data and protocols — turning a test-security position into an appearance of concealment.
The examiner has you endorse your field's validity-testing standards — then audits your battery against them.
Why this lands: Either the validity data undercuts the deficits, or the practice fell short of the standard you endorsed a minute ago. Both branches are losers unless you've rehearsed the interpretive framework that legitimately handles mixed validity findings. That framework, delivered under pressure, is exactly what the trainer drills.
You enter your discipline and evaluation type, and a realistic AI examiner cross-examines you out loud — validity testing first, then norms, premorbid method, literature selection, and battery consistency. Every session ends with a 5-axis FRE 702/Daubert scorecard. Unlimited private reps.
Absent or minimized performance-validity testing, norm-selection choices that move scores across cutoffs, indefensible premorbid estimation, persistent mild-TBI deficit opinions against consensus recovery literature, and battery composition that tracks referral source. Your own field's position statements are the cross-examiner's favorite exhibit.
With a rehearsed, non-defensive answer: the test-security obligation, the qualified-professional release path, and your willingness to follow the court's protective order. Hedging live reads as concealment. The trainer lets you rehearse the exchange until it's routine.
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