Reports are reflective. They are not evidence.
Receipts produces analysis. A court produces findings. Those are different jobs, and this page exists so nobody confuses them.
Last reviewed 26 May 2026 · Version 1
The plain version.
You can show a Receipts report to your lawyer, your therapist, your support worker, or a friend who's helping you think things through. You can attach one to an affidavit if your lawyer thinks it helps. What you can't do — and what we won't help anyone do — is present a Receipts output as expert evidence, forensic analysis, or a finding of fact. It isn't any of those things.
What a Receipts report is.
- A pattern-naming exercise carried out by a language model, with every finding linked back to the exact quote it was drawn from.
- An aid to reflection, conversation with a professional, and your own sense-making.
- A record of what the model saw on a specific date, with the model version noted.
What a Receipts report is not.
- Not certified forensic analysis. We don't hold ourselves out as forensic communications experts and we don't certify outputs as such.
- Not expert evidence. Only a qualified expert, accepted by a court under the relevant evidence rules, can give expert evidence. A Receipts report isn't a substitute for that and shouldn't be presented as one.
- Not a finding of fact. The model describes what the language appears to be doing. It doesn't determine truthfulness, guilt, abuse, coercive control, intent, or legal liability.
- Not guaranteed admissible. Whether a court accepts any document — including this one — depends on the jurisdiction, the proceedings, the rules of evidence, and how the document was prepared. We can't promise admissibility, and any vendor who does is lying.
- Not a substitute for legal advice. Talk to a lawyer about your specific situation before you rely on a report for anything that matters legally.
If you're showing a report to a lawyer.
Tell them:
- It's a pattern-naming output from a language model (Anthropic's Claude API, via Receipts).
- Every finding is linked to a verbatim quote from the conversation you supplied.
- The model has known limitations — it misses sarcasm, irony, cultural context, and code-switching. (More on the Responsible AI page.)
- The model deliberately favours false-negatives over false-positives, so absence of a finding isn't evidence of absence.
- The conversation source, integrity, and chain of custody are your responsibility, not ours.
We'd rather your lawyer have the full picture than discover any of this in cross-examination.
If a court or tribunal asks us for material.
We respond to lawful requests. We'll notify you unless we're legally prohibited from doing so. Anything we hand over is governed by the Privacy Policy and the warrant canary on the Trust page.
We do not, and will not, prepare expert reports, give expert testimony, or appear as a party in litigation about what a Receipts output means.
Contact.
For anything on this page: contact@receipts.love.
We're real people. Write to us.
If your lawyer has a question about what a Receipts report is — or isn't — write to us. We read and reply to every message, and we'd rather answer it now than have it surface in cross-examination.