AI-Generated Evidence and Rule 707: Texas Business Guide (2026)

According to public reporting, the Advisory Committee on Evidence Rules approved Rule 707 for public comment in May 2025. The draft would apply reliability standards modeled on Rule 702, the rule for human expert testimony, to machine-generated evidence. In the initial draft, the party offering the output would need to show an adequate foundation of underlying facts or data, that the technology uses scientifically valid methods, that those methods were applied accurately, and that the specific output reflects a reliable application to the facts of the case.

The proposal drew sharp criticism. Commenters called it overbroad and premature, and some argued existing expert rules already cover sophisticated computer analysis. Reporting in August 2026 indicated the committee was pausing the current draft to gather more input, with a mini-conference of technical experts and practitioners tied to its October 15 fall meeting. We do not yet know what, if anything, came out of that meeting, so treat the rule as unsettled and watch for updates from your counsel.

Even without a final rule, courts already scrutinize the reliability of technical evidence, and opposing counsel already ask how AI-generated content was created. Three practical risks apply to Houston-area businesses today:

• Foundation questions. If you rely on an AI summary, score, or transcript, the other side may demand the prompts, model, settings, and source data behind it.
• Discoverability. AI prompts and outputs created in Microsoft 365 can be discoverable ESI, as covered in our post on eDiscovery and Copilot AI content.
• Preservation. If you cannot produce the AI-assisted work product because retention rules deleted it, you are back in spoliation territory.

Most owners underestimate how many places AI content accumulates. Walk through your own environment and look for:

1. Copilot and chat history tied to individual Microsoft 365 accounts.
2. Meeting recordings, transcripts, and AI recaps generated in Teams.
3. Third-party AI tools that employees sign up for on their own, which we address in our shadow AI governance playbook.
4. Text messages and personal apps where staff paste AI output, a problem we cover in mobile and text message eDiscovery.

If you cannot list these sources today, you cannot preserve them tomorrow. Good data governance before you roll out AI is the cheapest defense, which is the focus of our guide to Copilot security and data governance.

You do not need a lawyer on staff to be defensible. You need a short, written practice that your IT provider can execute. Start with these steps:

• Approve your tools. Keep a list of sanctioned AI tools and block or review the rest.
• Log how AI is used for anything that could end up in a dispute: contracts, HR decisions, financial analysis, and client deliverables.
• Keep a human in the loop. Require a named employee to review and own any AI-assisted output before it is relied on.
• Set retention on purpose. Decide how long prompts, transcripts, and outputs are kept, and make sure a litigation hold in Microsoft 365 can override deletion immediately.
• Document the model and version used for high-stakes work, so you can answer foundation questions later.

More data sources mean more review expense if a dispute lands. Defining what AI content you keep, and for how long, keeps volume manageable. Our post on controlling eDiscovery costs explains how early scoping and smart retention reduce what you collect and review. Texas also now has its own AI governance framework to consider, summarized in our TRAIGA compliance guide.

This week, ask your IT lead one question: if opposing counsel asked for every AI-generated document tied to our largest client or newest dispute, could we find it, and has anything already been deleted? If the answer is unclear, begin with an inventory of AI tools in use and a review of Microsoft 365 retention settings. LayerLogix helps Texas SMBs and firms prepare through our eDiscovery services and Microsoft 365 managed services. If you advise clients, see our overview of IT support for Houston law firms.

• Managed IT services in Houston
• Managed IT services in The Woodlands
• Managed IT services in Katy