For what it's worth, I did my LLM at Columbia law, but I did my first degree at Ottawa law, and my very first legal job was actually at the Crown attorney's office in Ottawa, as a summer student. I'm very proud of that.
I think all it would require is rolling over the information just to add additional particulars. I understand that we often talk about counterbalancing the rights of the accused—they're innocent before trial and all that type of stuff; I agree—but even in the courtroom, which is an open courtroom, the evidence comes out eventually anyway.
All I'm saying is to front-load your evidentiary claims. Just call your shot. Say, “This person did this. Here's the evidence we're going to pretend to rely on,” and then it's clear to everyone what happened and what the implications of it are, rather than having this shifting narrative. If the narrative shifts, hostile states get in there. The textbook growth area for disinformation is when you start to see a shifting narrative. If we can be clear about it, I think it's going to solve two problems for us.