Digital Evidence Models
Investigation Event Record
Digital investigation events can be represented as actor, device, account, source, and review records. Honesty note: simplified US federal classroom model; Fourth Amendment doctrine and state rules vary; the pinned first step states the as-of date; not legal advice.
Structured Visual
Jurisdiction: US; as of 2026-06-24; not legal advice; Code encodes a process and label model, not the law itself.
RENDER STRUCTURE · REFUSE INTERPRETATION · CITE · ABSTAIN · HAND-OFF: render structure, refuse interpretation, cite provenance, abstain when unsupported, and hand off to human review.
Digital evidence model honesty note
Honesty note: simplified US federal classroom model; Fourth Amendment doctrine and state rules vary; as of June 24, 2026; not legal advice; code encodes a process and label model, not the law itself.
Start with an event record
The stated process stores a digital investigation event as actor label, device or account label, event date, source, and review-status fields.
Example event packet
The toy event date is May 12, 2026. The classroom log includes a device-event row and an account-event row.
The table recomputes support
The retrieval table recomputes 2 records and 2 token-supported rows from the authored event text.
Diagram note
The diagram is an investigation-event table. It is provenance and review data, not a criminal-procedure conclusion.
Jurisdiction: US; as of 2026-06-24; not legal advice; Code encodes a process and label model, not the law itself.
RENDER STRUCTURE · REFUSE INTERPRETATION · CITE · ABSTAIN · HAND-OFF: render structure, refuse interpretation, cite provenance, abstain when unsupported, and hand off to human review.
Summary
Digital evidence workflows should expose actor, device, account, date, source, and review fields before any gate trace.