Define the review assignment
Identify the case, issues, applicable rules, orders, and agreed process. State whether the task is early assessment, issue review, or another bounded exercise.
The Federal Rules are a starting point for federal matters. State rules, local requirements, and case-specific directions need their own review.
Describe the collection boundary
Record supplied sources, custodians where relevant, date range, file types, and known gaps. Preserve originals under the litigation team's evidence process.
Identify unreadable material and unsupported attachments. A completed analysis of accessible files does not establish that the collection is complete.
Define review decisions
Keep responsiveness, issues, confidentiality, privilege, and production status as separate questions. Provide examples and escalation criteria approved by counsel.
Do not treat an AI relevance result as the final legal decision about disclosure or production.
Test the protocol
Use representative documents with known review outcomes, including short replies, attachments, and misleading keywords. Inspect missed relevant documents as well as false positives.
Record whether normal reviewers can detect the observed errors. Revise the workflow when the check is impractical or unreliable.
Preserve the review record
Save instructions, versions, quality results, decisions, and exceptions through the approved process. Identify who approves changes to the protocol.
Judicio assists document analysis and organisation. It is not a complete e-discovery collection, processing, privilege-review, or production system.
Sources and next steps
This is an editorial workflow guide for legal professionals. The suggested checks are our practical recommendations, not a statement that a regulator requires a particular software workflow.
Explore Document Review and Review Matrix, or review Judicio's regional coverage and limitations. Check the underlying source and your organisation's approved process before relying on an output.