# A source-linked qui tam chronology builder.

> Canonical URL: https://getwolf.ai/guides/qui-tam-chronology-builder
> Published: 2026-08-23
> Last reviewed: 2026-08-24

A qui tam chronology builder converts candidate dates, events, actors, and supporting passages into an editable timeline for attorney review. Each entry should preserve a link to the record that supports it.

Written and maintained by the WOLF AI product team and checked against the public sources cited on this page. It has not been reviewed by outside counsel, and it is not legal advice.

WOLF AI is a software company, not a law firm. This page is educational and is not legal advice.

## What do the numbers say?

**60 days — Minimum seal period, 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b)(2).** A qui tam complaint is filed in camera and, under 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b)(2), "shall remain under seal for at least 60 days" and is not served on the defendant until the court so orders. Courts routinely extend that period, so the confidentiality obligation on the record set is measured in months or years, not weeks.

Source: [31 U.S.C. § 3730: Civil actions for false claims](https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:31%20section:3730%20edition:prelim))

**Rule 9(b) — Particularity standard for pleading fraud.** Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) requires that a party "must state with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake." In practice that is what turns an FCA matter into a document-organization problem: the allegation has to name specific claims, dates, and actors, each traceable to a record.

Source: [Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b): pleading fraud with particularity](https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_9)

**1,297 — Qui tam suits filed in FY2025.** The Department of Justice reports that whistleblowers filed 1,297 qui tam lawsuits in fiscal year 2025, the highest number in a single year and a sharp rise on the previous record of 980 set in 2024. Those filings drove more than $5.3 billion in reported settlements and judgments.

Source: [DOJ: False Claims Act settlements and judgments exceed $6.8B in fiscal year 2025](https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/false-claims-act-settlements-and-judgments-exceed-68b-fiscal-year-2025)

## Who is this workflow for?

Teams that currently maintain the case timeline in a spreadsheet that three people edit and nobody fully trusts, and that need every row to be defensible against the record behind it.

**When it is the wrong tool.** A chronology is not a substitute for a statement of facts, and building one early does not settle which events matter. If the theory of the case is still moving, expect the chronology to move with it.

## What documents and inputs do you need?

- The ingested matter documents, with page boundaries preserved.
- Known actor names and aliases, including the variants that appear in billing systems versus correspondence.
- The relevant period, including any limitations or tolling dates counsel wants marked.

## How does the workflow actually run?

1. Extract candidate dates and events from supported matter documents.
2. Normalize names and connect related people, organizations, and claims.
3. Attach each entry to its source document and page.
4. Have counsel resolve conflicts, remove irrelevant events, and approve the chronology.

## What does this look like in practice?

**Illustrative scenario.** Illustrative only. Three documents describe the same week: a service log, a claim submission, and an internal email.

1. Each document contributes its own dated entries rather than being merged into one summary line.
2. The service log and the claim disagree by two days; both entries stay, flagged as conflicting, with both sources attached.
3. Counsel resolves the conflict — one is a submission date, the other a date of service — and records that reading on the entry.
4. The resolved entry keeps both source links, so the reasoning survives for whoever reads the chronology in six months.

**What this does not show.** Software should surface the conflict and refuse to pick a winner. A timeline that quietly resolves contradictions is less useful than one that shows them.

## What do you get out, and who reviews it?

- An editable chronology where each entry names its document and page.
- A visible set of conflicts and gaps awaiting human resolution.
- Counsel owns ordering, inclusion, and any inference drawn from sequence.

## Where does this approach break down?

- Chronology order does not establish causation, knowledge, or materiality.
- Conflicting dates and ambiguous actors require human resolution.
- The chronology is work product support, not a filed pleading or legal opinion.
- Documents that were never collected cannot appear, and their absence is invisible in the timeline.

## Common questions

**Can the chronology be exported?**

Yes — as editable, structured work product for attorney review. Export scope and formats are confirmed during a demo.

**How are conflicting dates handled?**

They are kept and flagged with both sources attached, rather than resolved automatically. Counsel decides which reading is right and records why.

**Does a chronology entry prove an element of an FCA claim?**

No. Sequence is not knowledge, falsity, or materiality. Those are legal determinations for counsel against the statute and current case law.

## Where do these facts come from?

- [U.S. Department of Justice: The False Claims Act](https://www.justice.gov/civil/false-claims-act)
- [31 U.S.C. § 3729: False claims](https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:31%20section:3729%20edition:prelim))
- [31 U.S.C. § 3730: Civil actions for false claims](https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:31%20section:3730%20edition:prelim))

## Continue

- [See chronology-building support](https://getwolf.ai/products#features)
- [How WOLF AI pricing works](https://getwolf.ai/pricing)
- [Book a demo](https://getwolf.ai/book-demo)
- [Security and data handling](https://getwolf.ai/security)

## Related field guides

- [Claims mapping for False Claims Act matters](https://getwolf.ai/guides/claims-mapping-false-claims-act)
- [AI-assisted FCA evidence review](https://getwolf.ai/guides/ai-assisted-fca-evidence-review)