Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Mobile forensic investigations generate data from applications, cloud services, and devices. Although investigators must combine these sources, systematic records of interpretations and cross-case relationships are often lost between investigations. This study applies Karpathy's "second brain" framework to mobile forensics, introducing a persistent forensic knowledge architecture as an alternative to retrieval-augmented generation (RAG). The architecture comprises three levels: immutable source data, an LLM-generated and maintained wiki, and procedural rules. The raw data layer preserves evidence; the wiki provides a cross-referenced knowledge base covering individuals, applications, and timelines; and procedural rules define case workflows. The architecture does not propose an LLM-based forensic analyst. Instead, an LLM operates as one component within an agent-driven forensic process. Evaluation on two Digital Corpora datasets (iOS 17 and Android 14) produced a 51-page knowledge base containing 525 internal references, 99.6% of which resolved correctly. Manual verification of facts against build logs found no contradictions, although nearly one-third could not be confirmed from documentation. The system demonstrated cross-application entity linking, multi-time-zone timeline reconstruction, and detection of deliberately hidden or deleted data. Comparison with a locally hosted open-weight model highlights quality/privacy trade-offs. Findings support persistent forensic knowledge management while underscoring the need for human oversight.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Pawlaszczyk et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: