FWD-5 Digital evidence that holds up

Fijishi Working Draft 5 – 14 October 2026

Stage 1 of 4: working draft. Not yet open for public comment, not a numbered version, and not the criteria Fijishi certifies against. This draft replaces, as a new version, the earlier paper "BSA-63 - Evidentiary Integrity Standard" (2023-2026); the earlier text is available on request. Standards in development

The question

If an AI decision is challenged in proceedings, can the firm produce the electronic records behind it in a form a court or tribunal will accept?

Why it matters to firms

A record that exists but cannot be relied on as evidence leaves the firm unable to show what happened. Courts apply their own rules to electronic records. In India, for example, Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 sets conditions, including a certificate, for electronic records to be admissible. ISO/IEC 27037 gives guidelines for identifying, collecting and preserving digital evidence.

Principles

  1. Captured at the time: records are made when the decision is made, not reconstructed later.
  2. Custody shown: every handling of the record is logged.
  3. Integrity checkable: it can be shown that the record has not changed.
  4. Someone can vouch for it: a named person can describe the system and the records as the local evidence rules require.
  5. Producible without the vendor's goodwill.

What a firm should be able to show (draft criteria)

  • FWD-5.1 Records generated by the system at the time of the decision.
  • FWD-5.2 A custody log from capture to production.
  • FWD-5.3 Integrity checks recorded at capture and at export.
  • FWD-5.4 A named person able to give the certificate or statement the local evidence rules require about the system and its records.
  • FWD-5.5 A documented and tested process for exporting records for proceedings.
  • FWD-5.6 A legal hold that preserves records relating to a dispute once it is reasonably expected.

How it relates to existing rules and standards

  • Evidence rules differ by jurisdiction, and the firm's counsel decides what a proceeding requires. This draft sets out what a firm's records should allow, not what any court will decide.
  • It builds on the record in FWD-2 and the integrity practices of ISO/IEC 27037.

Where it is used now

It informs Juris, which supports licensed counsel on a disputed AI decision. Fijishi does not practise law.

What happens next

Public comment follows FWD-1. Comments are welcome now: protocol@fijishi.com

© 2026 Fijishi Enterprises Private Limited. Licensed under CC BY-ND 4.0.