Claude, Claim Chart.
A walkthrough of Claude's claim-chart skill showing why a filled cell means a citation was found, not that the element is proven, and why a gap is not a failure.
Claude's claim-chart skill breaks a legal claim into its separate elements and looks for evidence supporting each one, element by element. The easy mistake is to read a full grid as a strong case, since every box has an entry. This video walks through why a filled cell and a gap mean something narrower than that.
What a claim chart actually does
A legal claim breaks down into separate elements, and each one needs its own proof. The claim-chart skill works through a claim this way: for every element, it finds a passage that could support it and pin-cites the exact page and line where that passage lives. The chart is a map of where support exists and where it doesn't, not a verdict on the claim itself.
The anchor: one cited element, one gapped element
The video anchors this on two elements from the same claim. "A locking mechanism" turns up a citation straight to the product manual, page twelve, so that cell reads "supported, manual page 12." "A temperature sensor" turns up nothing in the same manual. No citation exists to put in that cell, so it's marked as a gap, flagged on purpose rather than left ambiguous.
Filled does not mean proven
A filled cell only shows that a citation was found and pinned to a specific page. It says nothing about whether that citation actually proves the element. A citation can be weak, or it can cover only part of what the element requires. Treating a full grid as an automatically strong case skips over that distinction entirely.
A gap does not mean the claim fails
The flip side matters just as much. A gap isn't proof that the element fails, it's only proof that no evidence has turned up yet in the documentation reviewed. The chart's job either way is the same: show exactly where to look next, whether that means double-checking a weak citation or searching further for the missing one.
Try it yourself
The video's prompt: paste in the claim language element by element, along with the accused product's documentation. For each element, ask Claude to find the exact passage that supports it, cite it, and flag any element with no citation as a gap, without guessing to fill it in. Running this surfaces the same distinction the video is built around: a chart is only useful once you can tell its filled cells from its gaps, not by how full it looks at a glance.
Key takeaways
- The claim-chart skill works element by element, pin-citing the exact page and line supporting each one.
- A filled cell means a citation was found, not that the element is proven.
- A citation can be weak or only partially cover an element, so full grids still need review.
- A gap is flagged on purpose and only means no evidence has turned up yet, not that the element fails.
- The chart's real value is pointing to what to check next, not delivering a finished verdict.
Who this is for
Anyone using Claude to organize evidence against claim elements in patent or contract disputes, and anyone who wants to understand what a claim chart's filled cells and gaps actually represent before relying on one.
Chapters
Full transcript(auto-generated, with timestamps)
Can Claude map my case with a claim chart?
[0:00]Someone building a claim chart assumes a filled cell means proof. It doesn't. The real value is which cells can't be filled. The real question, where does the evidence actually run out element by element? A legal claim breaks into
A full grid reads as a strong case
[0:12]Separate elements and each one needs its own proof. Build the chart and the easy move is to treat a full grid as a strong case. Every box has an entry, so every element must be covered. But a filled cell only shows a citation was found. It says nothing about whether that citation actually proves the element. A claim
The anchor — one cited, one gapped
[0:29]Chart works element by element. For every element it finds the passage that could support it and pin sites the exact page and line. Watch two elements from the same claim. A locking mechanism turns up a citation straight to the product manual, page 12. A temperature sensor turns up nothing in the same manual, no citation exists to put in that cell. So on this chart, the locking
Filled ≠ proven, gap ≠ failed
[0:50]Mechanism cell reads supported manual page 12 and the temperature sensor cell reads no citation found a gap, flagged on purpose. A filled cell doesn't decide the case. A citation can be weak or cover only part of the element. And a gap doesn't decide it either. It isn't proof the element fails, only proof no evidence has turned up yet. Either way, the chart shows exactly where to look next. The point of
Carry-out
[1:11]A claim chart isn't a full grid, it's a pin site for what's supported and a flag element by element for what's missing.
Your turn
[1:18]Your turn. Here's the prompt, read it with me. Paste in the claim language element by element along with the accused product's documentation. Then ask for each element, find the exact passage that supports it, site it, and flag any element with no citation as a gap. Don't guess to fill it in. Lay them in for bare.
Outro
[1:35]Claude claim chart, lay them in for bare.
