Discovery workflow
Record workflows for discovery responses
Discovery review starts with the request-response pair. Preserve the request number, objections, answer, amendments, and cited production together so a model does not judge a response from a detached excerpt.
A verification-first process
- 01
Pair each request with its response
Preserve numbering, subparts, definitions, objections, substantive answer, referenced documents, and amendments. Do not let renumbering sever a response from its request.
- 02
Define the review question
Ask for a factual inventory, a gap list, a draft aid, or a production index. Whether a response is legally sufficient is a lawyer’s jurisdiction-specific judgment, not a model output.
- 03
Require request-level support
Have every observation identify the request or interrogatory number plus the response page, Bates range, or production item supporting it.
- 04
Review objections and amendments manually
Confirm the model preserved qualifiers and did not treat an objection, partial answer, supplemental response, or document reference as a complete admission.
Keep the request-response pair visible
- Identify the discovery set, request or interrogatory number, and response page.
- When the answer refers to produced material, include the referenced Bates range without assuming what it proves.
- Quote objections and substantive answers separately when both affect the observation.
- Label a possible omission as a review item, not a legal conclusion about sufficiency or waiver.
Human verification checklist
- Request numbers and subparts match the source set.
- Objections, qualifications, and supplemental answers are preserved.
- Every cited production item exists at the stated Bates range.
- Draft language has been checked against governing rules, orders, and case strategy by counsel.
Templates for this workflow
Browse all templates →Discovery Gap Finder
Flag every evasive, incomplete, or boilerplate-objection answer against what was actually asked — and walk away with your meet-and-confer list drafted.
Requests for Admission Drafter
Draft Requests for Admission aimed at single facts the record already supports — one fact each, grouped by issue, plus authentication RFAs and the facts you still need.
Record Interrogation Session Setup
The standing-rules prompt: paste this once at the start of a chat session and every answer after it comes cited, sourced, and honest about gaps.
Planned Workbench · Product preview
Run this source workflow inside a matter.
The planned Workbench keeps the source, workflow run, cited draft, and human review state together. No matter upload or processing is available on this public page.
Request a conversation about the planned Workbench →Continue across the record
Before using a third-party model, review how data leaves the browser. For the prompt framework and its limits, read the CITE guide and editorial methodology.