N Catalyst.ai
Book a demo
The situation
Disclosure obligations scale with the matter, not with the size of the team. A review set can run to hundreds of thousands of documents against a timetable set by the court.
The response has always been to narrow by keyword and sample by hand. Both are defensible only if you can explain the methodology afterwards.
Why it is hard
Recall is the risk, not precision
Returning irrelevant material wastes time. Missing relevant material is a different category of problem entirely.
Privilege is not a keyword
Privilege depends on who was involved and why a document exists, which is a relationship question, not a text-matching one.
The method has to be explainable
A review that cannot be described to the other side and to the court is not usable regardless of its accuracy.
How we approach it
Agentix supports review by making the whole set searchable and answerable with citations, so a reviewer can ask about the set and get answers tied to specific documents, rather than relying on keyword lists alone.
Decisions are recorded with their basis, so the methodology can be described afterwards. The determination of relevance and privilege stays with the supervising lawyer.
What changes
- The whole set searchable and answerable, not just keyword filtered
- Every answer tied to the documents behind it
- Decisions recorded with their basis so the method can be explained
- Relevance and privilege determined by the supervising solicitor
Next
Is this your problem too?
Bring the version of it you actually have. We will tell you what it would take, including when the answer is that it is not worth doing.