Make the review standard visible.

Before relying on the output

Assign a reviewer and identify the task, record set, jurisdiction, and intended recipient. Mark missing documents and unreadable pages before assessing the result. The checks below support a workflow evaluation; they do not replace professional judgment.

Check items as you review. Selections are temporary and reset when this page reloads. Use your browser’s Print command for a paper copy or PDF.

1. 1. Confirm the intake and index.

   Check document names, dates, page counts, and designation against the supplied files. Sample scans and handwritten pages. Confirm that missing or unreadable content is visible to the reviewer.

2. 2. Inspect duplicate handling.

   Verify that flagged duplicates are actually duplicates. Check near-identical reports for changed pages, annotations, signatures, or attachments. Confirm that the original record remains accessible.

3. 3. Trace material statements to the source.

   Open the cited page and read the surrounding context. Confirm the patient, author, date, and finding. Distinguish what a source reports from any inference in the output.

4. 4. Check the chronology for omissions.

   Compare against the record index, not just the generated timeline. Distinguish event dates from report dates. Keep uncertain dates, gaps, and conflicting accounts visible.

5. 5. Review comparisons and changes.

   Check work status, impairment, causation, and apportionment against each physician’s actual opinion. Verify any claimed change using both the earlier and later source. Have the responsible attorney check applicable jurisdiction, edition, and method.

6. 6. Verify summaries and client answers.

   For subpoenaed records and deposition summaries, check material qualifications, contrary testimony, and missing exhibits. For client answers, verify the current question and the relevant correspondence before approving a response.

7. 7. Record corrections and retest them.

   Log the original output, correction, and reason. On a later sample, check whether the same error recurs. Do not assume that editing an output automatically teaches the system or changes future behavior.

8. 8. Approve and measure the completed task.

   Record preparation, verification, correction, and transfer time separately. Identify the final reviewer and any unresolved issues. Release work only through the firm’s normal approval process.

Agree on the stop conditions

Before the pilot, decide which errors require an immediate pause, which require correction, and who makes that call. Examples to discuss include omitted material evidence, unsupported findings, incorrect source references, and access outside the approved scope. Record errors as well as successes.

Give paralegals a role in the evaluation

The person who prepares the record often knows where the difficult cases are. Include that person when selecting files, reviewing the index, and comparing the first pass with attorney edits. Measure the full handoff so a faster draft does not hide extra work downstream.