Record ADispatch ledger · p. 2
Dispatch entry
“Shipment released on 11 June.”
The excerpt records release from the sender. It does not, by itself, establish receipt.
Keep the source beside the statement.
AI-assisted legal work should be easier to examine, not harder to explain. Preserve the path from the original record to the work product and the judgment behind it.
A proposed evidence layer for attorney-supervised work, designed around source traceability, version context and review decisions.
01 / The review path
A draft is an output.
The record is the explanation.
A polished answer should not conceal how it was assembled. The proposed workflow keeps the underlying materials, processing choices and human decisions available for examination.
- 01
Preserve
Keep the original file and its version. Record where it came from and the permissions attached to it.
Original + provenance - 02
Locate
Connect extracted passages to a document, page or agreed locator. Leave uncertain extraction visible.
Passage + locator - 03
Transform
Retain the processing context that produced a summary, chronology or draft, including relevant versions.
Method + context - 04
Compare
Put competing passages beside the statement. Separate missing support from a difference in interpretation.
Support + open questions - 05
Review
Record counsel’s correction, qualification or decision. Keep the basis beside the revised work product.
Reviewer + decision - 06
Retain
Preserve the review history under agreed access, retention and export rules, without silently replacing earlier versions.
History + policy
This is a proposed integration pattern for CertainTIQ’s compute and data architecture, not a claim that a production legal matter system is available. The workflow and record format would be agreed with the evaluating team.
02 / Inspect the statement
Two dates.
Different events.
A dispatch date and a receipt date can both be correct. A reviewer needs to see whether a draft has collapsed them into the same event.
Fictional matter / delivery chronologyProposed review workflow
Source excerpts
Record BReceipt log · p. 1
Receipt entry
“Goods received on 14 June.”
The excerpt records arrival. Its event definition differs from the dispatch entry.
Work product
Draft · v1Needs review
The statement being examined
Delivery was completed on 11 June.
Attached reference: Record A, page 2
Reviewer’s question
Does a dispatch entry support a statement about completed delivery?
What the record retains
- The original draft and its attached reference
- The exact source excerpt and its locator
- An open question for human review
Review state
The draft cites Record A, but its wording goes beyond the event described in that excerpt.
All records and excerpts in this example are fictional. The controls expose a fixed review scenario; they do not analyze uploaded documents or make a legal determination.
03 / Where to begin
Start with a matter.
Not an entire practice.
Choose a bounded workflow where the team already knows what a reviewable result should contain. These are evaluation candidates, not claims of completed integrations.
A chronology you can inspect.
Connect each event to its source passage. Keep competing dates, ambiguous event definitions and unsupported assertions visible rather than flattening them into one confident narrative.
Review artifact A source-linked chronology with unresolved questions and counsel’s corrections.
A version-aware issue register.
Retain which agreement, amendment and schedule informed a draft issue list. Show where a term changed and where the interpretation depends on determining which document applies.
Review artifact A document-version register with passage references and a decision history.
A finding with an examinable basis.
Keep interviews, records and derived summaries distinct. Preserve attribution and distinguish corroboration, disagreement and missing evidence without treating a generated summary as the original.
Review artifact A finding-to-source map with access boundaries and open evidentiary questions.
A work product with review history.
Keep cited material, retrieval context and draft revisions connected. Current authority, jurisdictional relevance and the validity of any citation remain matters for counsel to verify.
Review artifact A draft with traceable references, qualifications and recorded reviewer changes.
04 / The matter record
Keep the history.
Not just the answer.
The useful handoff is not a confidence badge. It is enough retained context for another authorized reviewer to examine how the work product came to be.
Proposed record contents
- Source identity
- Original file, source location, version and document manifest. Derived text remains linked to the original rather than replacing it.
- Passage location
- Page or agreed locator, relevant excerpt and any extraction uncertainty that affects the review.
- Processing context
- Inputs, transformation steps and relevant configuration or model versions, to the extent the integrated systems make them available.
- Work-product history
- Draft versions, supporting references, flagged inconsistencies and changes made in response to review.
- Human decisions
- Reviewer identity, time context, correction or qualification, and the recorded basis for that decision.
- Handling rules
- Agreed permissions, confidentiality boundaries, retention requirements and export expectations for the evaluation.
A content hash can help detect a change in the content it covers. It cannot establish that an underlying statement is true, that a document is authentic, or that the material is admissible.
05 / A bounded evaluation
Test the difficult cases.
Keep the misses.
Use an agreed document set, a known review baseline and acceptance criteria set before the scored run. Include missing support, version changes and deliberately ambiguous passages.
Define the boundary.
Agree the matter scope, authorized reviewers, document permissions, data handling and retention. Identify the systems that would need to provide originals, versions and processing records.
Measure what can be examined.
Evaluate source-link completeness, missed inconsistencies, false flags and time needed to trace a statement to its support. Treat each as a metric to agree, not a promised result.
Review gaps as findings.
Have a second authorized reviewer follow the retained path. Keep the exceptions, corrections and unexplained gaps alongside the successful examples when deciding whether to continue.
Professional boundary
Support counsel’s judgment. Do not substitute for it.
The proposed workflow does not determine privilege, satisfy a preservation obligation, establish admissibility or guarantee legal correctness. Counsel retains responsibility for legal analysis, current authority and final decisions. Matter-specific confidentiality, access and deployment requirements must be agreed before an evaluation begins.
From the matter to the test
Bring one review path your team needs to examine.
Start with a non-confidential description of the workload, the current review process and the evidence your team would need to proceed. Share sensitive matter materials only through an agreed private process.