Review and evidence

A review decision identifies the matter revision considered, the reviewer, the outcome and the reason. Approval, rejection and return are distinct decisions. A returned case needs work by the coordinator before another review; a rejected case should not quietly advance as though it were approved. The operation key gives the decision a stable link to the guarded action it concerns.

Attachments supply supporting files for a matter. Their title, upload time, uploader, evidence type and internal or shared visibility give readers context for use. Sharing is a deliberate choice because a file may contain internal legal reasoning or client material. Auditors can read authorized evidence without becoming editors of the matter.

• Independent decision. Record the source revision, named reviewer, outcome and reason.
• Evidence context. Link each attachment to the matter with its uploader and visibility.
• Operation outcome. Use a stable key, expected revision and result state for guarded actions.

Agree which actions require a separate reviewer and what evidence the reviewer must see. The Matter Coordinator can prepare a revision and its attachments; the Supervising Attorney decides whether it can proceed. Define how a returned decision is resubmitted. A new revision should be reviewed as new material rather than inheriting the old approval.

Agree who investigates a failed or review-needed operation receipt. Its action, expected revision, failure reason and external reference should be inspected before any retry. If an outside service may have performed the effect, reconcile that result first. The team’s evidence practice should make it possible to explain what was requested and what actually completed.

A coordinator submits a matter revision for review with a supporting attachment. The attorney returns it with a reason because the supporting authorization is unclear. The coordinator prepares a corrected revision and supplies the missing evidence. A later approval refers to the corrected revision, while the earlier return remains visible to the auditor.

Suppose the subsequent guarded operation reports that it needs review. The attorney examines the receipt and its external reference before deciding whether the action completed elsewhere. The team should not simply repeat the action and create two effects. The case is finished only when the decision, operation result and retained evidence tell the same story.

When the matter changes after a return, compare the new source revision with the one named in the earlier decision. That comparison shows why a fresh approval is needed and keeps the prior reason useful to a later reviewer.

• Operations needing review — Investigate guarded outcomes that need reconciliation.
• Returned decisions — Find revisions sent back for correction.

Follow review and reconciliation and review access.