← Back to catalogue
Published

Evidence Item / Exhibit

vr.wm-pol-020 · wm-pol-020-evidence-item-exhibit

Describe one persistently identified evidence item and its provenance, custody, integrity assessments and proceeding-specific exhibit uses.

World Models Society, people and institutions SOC.POL.EVD
Bundle → Layer → Finding → QuestionsClassifiersWhat it isWhy it existsDistinguishing featuresWhat robots and AI may and may not doMoral aspectsOwnersLinks to other meta-modelsIdentity and identifiersDirect propertiesRecognitionCapabilities and actionsHazards and failure modesStandards and interfacesContext of useSources

Bundle → Layer → Finding → Questions Filled

3 bundles · 3 layers · 6 findings · 12 questions

Provenance Where the item came from and how it was collected.

Collection record

Seizure or collection with its authority, place, time and method.

Lawful collection

The authority and method under which the item was obtained.

  1. Under which warrant, consent or other legal authority was the item obtained?
  2. Who collected it, when and where?

Original state

The condition of the item at collection and how it was packaged.

  1. In what condition was the item at collection, and was this documented with photographs?
  2. For digital items, was a forensic copy made and a hash value recorded at acquisition?
Chain of custody Who held the item and whether it stayed intact.

Custody transfers

Each transfer, storage location and examination.

Unbroken custody

A continuous record of every holder and location.

  1. Is every transfer of the item recorded with date, time and the persons involved?
  2. Were seals intact at each transfer, or was a break documented?

Examinations

Examinations or tests performed on the item.

  1. Which examinations were performed, by which accredited laboratory?
  2. Did any examination consume or alter the item?
Use in proceedings How the item is offered and decided on.

Exhibit and disposition

Exhibit marking, admissibility rulings and final disposition.

Admissibility

The ruling on whether the item was admitted and on what ground.

  1. Under which exhibit number was the item offered, and by which party?
  2. Was the item admitted, excluded or limited, and on what ground?

Disposition

Return, retention or destruction after the case.

  1. Is the item still required for appeal or retention, or can it be returned or destroyed?
  2. Who authorized the disposition?

Classifiers Filled

Family
World Models
Category
Society, people and institutions
Entry kind
entity
Navigation path
NAV.SOC.POL.EVD
Domain
SOC.POL.EVD
Industry
Cross-industry
Tags
evidenceitemexhibitsoc.pol.evd

What it is Filled

An evidence item or exhibit is a physical object, document or digital artifact collected for a legal proceeding or investigation and kept under a chain of custody so that it can be offered to and assessed by a tribunal. The class covers the item, its provenance, custody and admissibility; the case it belongs to and the judgment that weighs it are separate subjects.

In scope

  • Authority-scoped identity, material or representation properties and observation evidence
  • Item-specific origin, custody events, derivatives, condition and examination references
  • Case-qualified uses, restrictions, preservation obligations, disposition evidence and controlled record revisions

Out of scope

  • Court case lifecycle, judgments, legal rules, party and property ownership masters
  • Search, seizure, detention, controlled-item handling, forensic acquisition, testing or destruction procedures
  • Executing transfers, disclosure, legal decisions, physical disposal or general audit infrastructure

Why it exists Filled

Describe one persistently identified evidence item and its provenance, custody, integrity assessments and proceeding-specific exhibit uses.

Distinguishing features Filled

  • Its value depends on provenance and an unbroken chain of custody, not only on its content.
  • It may be physical or digital, but integrity must be shown in either case.
  • It differs from a supporting record, which documents a business fact without being collected for a proceeding.
  • Admissibility is decided by a tribunal; the item record only supports that decision.

What robots and AI may and may not do Filled

Must not

  • Alter, edit or enhance an evidence item or its original copy.
  • Backdate or fill in missing custody entries.
  • Disclose evidence outside the parties and purposes the proceeding allows.
  • Decide or represent that an item is admissible.
  • Destroy or return an item without authorization.

Only with a human decision

  • Seizing or collecting items under legal authority.
  • Authorizing destructive examination of an item.
  • Ordering return or destruction after the case.

May

  • Record custody transfers, storage locations and seal checks.
  • Compute and verify hash values of digital evidence copies.
  • Prepare exhibit lists and indexes for counsel and the court.
  • Flag gaps or inconsistencies in the chain of custody.

Moral aspects Filled

  • Tampered or mishandled evidence can lead to wrongful conviction or wrongful acquittal.
  • Evidence often contains private data of victims, witnesses and bystanders.
  • Both prosecution and defence need fair access to evidence and its custody record.

Who is affected

  • Accused persons and parties to proceedings
  • Victims and witnesses
  • Courts and investigators
  • Owners of seized property

Owners Filled

Steward

The investigating agency or party that collected the item holds custody, under the supervision of the court once the item is offered.

Roles

Evidence-record steward
Maintain namespace, profile and record quality without assuming ownership of property.
Custody recorder
Attribute receipt and handover evidence and flag discrepancies.
Qualified examiner
Supply scoped report and limitation references under evidenced competence.
Legal and disclosure reviewer
Assess case-specific authority, use restrictions and disclosure decisions.
Records officer
Review retention, holds, rights claims and disposition evidence.
Authorized recipient
Use only the permitted representation within the recorded purpose and restrictions.

Master systems

  • Evidence and property management systems
  • Case management systems of courts and agencies
  • Forensic laboratory information systems

Links to other meta-models Filled

references

  • WM-POL-009 Court / Arbitration Case - Optional case-qualified use link, reconciling the incoming candidate CONTAINS edge. Case lifecycle stays external and multiple cases can reference the same item.
  • Physical object, document or digital asset master - Resolve subject identity and representation scope without importing asset operations or property-rights authority.
  • Decision and examination report masters - Bind exact external revisions and authority; the local record owns only item-specific links and attributed status.
  • Party, authority and location masters - Resolve custody, decision and location references under appropriate access restrictions.

aligned

  • PROV-O - Candidate entity/activity/agent and qualified derivation mapping; executable conformance is pending.

neighbor

  • WM-POL-009 Court / Arbitration Case - The incoming candidate CONTAINS relationship allows a case to reference an item. It does not make the case own the item master or require every item to have a court case. One item can have multiple case-specific uses.
  • Physical object, document and digital asset masters - The evidentiary record references its subject and exact representation. Device, contents, package, copy and extract are distinct identities; a container is not automatically a single evidence item.
  • Decision and examination report - Rulings and scientific conclusions remain attributed external records. Their identifiers, revisions and scope are linked without importing the deciding forum or laboratory lifecycle.
  • Demonstrative or illustrative aid - A presentation aid is not automatically evidence. Preserve the recorded role and ruling; do not admit an aid merely because it was displayed or assigned a label.

parent

  • WM-POL-009

What else AI and robots need to interact with it Filled

Identity and identifiers required Filled

  • An item is identified by the evidence or property number assigned at collection, linked to the case number.
  • When offered in court it receives an exhibit number; digital items are also identified by hash values.

Direct properties required Filled

  • Dimensions in millimetres and mass in grams or kilograms, recorded at collection for physical items.
  • Storage temperature in degrees Celsius for biological and perishable items.
  • Seal condition at each transfer, recorded as intact or broken with details.
  • For digital items, a cryptographic hash value computed at acquisition and at each verification.

Recognition required Filled

  • An item is recognized by its sealed packaging, evidence label, number and custody form.
  • Often confused with a copy made for review, with the case file or with similar unseized objects.

Capabilities and actions required Filled

  • Can be examined, tested and presented to a tribunal with its custody record.
  • Digital items can be verified against hash values to show they are unchanged.
  • Can be returned, retained or destroyed at the end of the case on authorization.

Hazards and failure modes required Filled

  • Contamination or degradation that destroys evidential value.
  • Broken chain of custody leading to exclusion or wrongful outcomes.
  • Exposure of handlers to biological, chemical or sharp hazards from items.

Standards and interfaces required Filled

  • ISO/IEC 27037 for identification, collection, acquisition and preservation of digital evidence.
  • ISO 21043 for forensic science processes.
  • Court exhibit lists and electronic filing systems.

Context of use required Filled

  • Used in criminal, civil, administrative and arbitration proceedings and in internal investigations.
  • Rules on collection, custody and admissibility differ by jurisdiction and procedure.

Sources Filled

  1. The Biological Evidence Preservation Handbook: Best Practices for Evidence Handlers - National Institute of Standards and Technology
  2. Digital Evidence Preservation: Considerations for Evidence Handlers - National Institute of Standards and Technology
  3. Federal Rules of Evidence - United States Federal Judiciary
  4. PROV-O: The PROV Ontology - World Wide Web Consortium
  5. Date and Time on the Internet: Timestamps - Internet Engineering Task Force
  6. Declarations of compliance and non-compliance with the code of practice - Forensic Science Regulator
  7. Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 (section 23(1)) Code of Practice - Ministry of Justice
  8. ISO/IEC 27037 Guidelines for identification, collection, acquisition and preservation of digital evidence, ISO and IEC
  9. ISO 21043 Forensic sciences, ISO
  10. Federal Rules of Evidence, United States

Open questions

  • Verify source responses and stable editions outside the sandbox, then obtain qualified review of current law, licensing and adopting jurisdiction profiles.
  • Implement and test instance schemas and mappings with disputed custody, identical bytes in separate records, multiple cases, limited rulings, redacted views and conflicting retention obligations.
  • Restore independent external review before promotion beyond reviewable draft.
  • No independent external provider review; local Codex audit is a separate self-audit only.
  • Direct HTTP and immutable source-body checks are pending outside the sandbox; browser readings cover selected sections only.
  • Detailed civil, arbitration, administrative, cross-border and non-US/non-England-and-Wales legal profiles are not researched.
  • Nested instance schemas, algorithm policy, storage bindings, executable mappings and adversarial fixtures remain incomplete.
  • No specimen protocols, media acquisition procedures, laboratory methods, controlled-item operations or legal decision engine is supplied.
  • Licensing and operational source currency require review; the regulator guidance explicitly excludes the Open Government Licence.

Machine files

Card as JSON Specification AGENTS.md Source Card backlog vercy.card/1

Provenance

world-models research · reviewable-draft

Built from: models/wm-pol-020-evidence-item-exhibit/spec.yaml, ver-cy/world-models/card-supplements/wm-pol-020-evidence-item-exhibit.json