United States (federal courts) · court rule
FRE 702: what it requires, and the records to keep
Rule 702 lets a qualified expert testify only if the proponent shows the court it is more likely than not that the testimony is helpful, based on sufficient facts or data, the product of reliable methods, and a reliable application of those methods. The 2023 amendment made the preponderance standard explicit and tightened the 'reliable application' prong. That matters wherever an expert's opinion rests on AI or model output.
01 / What it requires
What FRE 702 requires
Parties offering expert testimony in federal court, and the judges who decide whether to admit it.
- 01Show the court, more likely than not, that each Rule 702 requirement is met; weight arguments do not substitute for this showing.
- 02Base the opinion on sufficient facts or data.
- 03Use reliable principles and methods, including known or potential error rates where available.
- 04Show the opinion reflects a reliable application of the method to the case facts, without overstating certainty.
02 / AI work
Where it touches AI work
When an expert relies on an AI or machine-learning tool, the court can ask whether the tool's method is reliable and was reliably applied: validation, error rates, data and reproducibility. A proposed Rule 707 to extend these factors to machine output offered without an expert was not recommended for approval in May 2026 and remains under study.
03 / Dates
The dates that matter
Federal Rules of Evidence take effect
Daubert v. Merrell Dow sets the judicial gatekeeping standard
Rule 702 amended to codify Daubert reliability factors
Supreme Court approves the 2023 amendment
2023 amendment takes effect
04 / Enforcement
Who enforces it
Federal trial judges as gatekeepers exclude non-compliant testimony; appellate review for abuse of discretion. No monetary penalties.
05 / Records
Records an organisation keeps
What an auditor or an inquiry usually asks to see. Your obligations depend on your role and your facts.
- 01Expert report describing data, method, and error rate
- 02Validation studies or benchmarks for any AI tool relied on
- 03Versioned inputs, settings and outputs allowing reproduction
- 04Record of limits and uncertainty stated in the opinion
Optional evidence · where Planisphere fits
Keep a record anyone can check
When your team meets a duty, Planisphere can seal the event it reports as a receipt.
A disclosure shown, a review signed, a model change approved: the event your system reports.
The event becomes a sealed receipt, dated and attributed to whoever is signed in.
Paste the receipt into Verify. No account or key.
A record supports your compliance evidence process. It is not a legal finding or a certification. Systems that call Planisphere's gate API can also hold or refuse an action before it runs.
QUESTIONS
The questions that come next
Does AI output have to meet FRE 702 reliability standards?+
When an expert relies on AI output, yes. Rule 702 requires the party offering the expert to show the court, more likely than not, that the opinion rests on sufficient facts or data, uses reliable methods and reliably applies them to the case. AI output offered without any expert is judged today under general rules such as relevance and authentication. Proposed Rule 707 would apply Rule 702's standards to that output, but in May 2026 the Advisory Committee on Evidence Rules declined to advance it and is studying a revised draft. Read the full answer
What did the 2023 FRE 702 amendment change for expert testimony?+
The 2023 amendment, effective December 1, 2023, made two changes. First, it states that the party offering an expert must show the court that each Rule 702 requirement is more likely than not met, which confirms that admissibility is the judge's decision under Rule 104(a), not a question of weight for the jury. Second, it changed prong (d) to require that the expert's opinion reflect a reliable application of the method to the facts, aimed at experts whose conclusions go beyond what their method supports. Read the full answer
SOURCES
Go back to the source
Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts
Legal Information Institute (Cornell)
CHANGE LOG
What changed, and when
Rebuilt from primary sources; facts checked on this date.
Related: FRE 702 vs ABA Model Rules · FRE 702 for law AI workflows · NIST AI RMF · OMB M-25-21/22 · DoW RAI S&IP · EO 14179 · FIPS 140-3 · SHA-256 / FIPS 180-4