Review and evidence

A change to accepted matter scope needs an understandable decision trail. The review decision records the source revision, decision, reason, operation key and reviewer. The operation receipt records the action, expected revision, result state, references to effects and any failure reason. The matter timeline gives a dated account of decisions and other activity. Evidence attachments keep the supporting file, uploader and visibility choice with that same matter.

Suppose an owner asks to correct an accepted deadline after an amended court notice. The original deadline and its receipt remain explainable. The Operations Reviewer considers the source revision and records a decision with a reason. An accepted correction adds successor evidence and a compensating receipt. Anyone checking the case later can distinguish the earlier instruction from the corrected one and see who made the decision.

• Independent judgment. The review decision links a named team member to the approval, rejection or return and the source revision.
• Execution outcome. The operation receipt records whether an action is pending, completed, failed or needs review.
• Supporting record. The matter timeline and evidence attachments retain dated activity and files against the parent matter.

Decide which changes require an independent reviewer and how the reviewer is kept separate from the request owner. Agree what evidence is needed for a correction, cancellation or engagement decision. Define the meaning of Internal and Shared attachment visibility for your team, and who may upload each kind of evidence. Select a consistent way to describe external references and effect references so reconciliation can find them.

Plan an exception routine. A failed receipt or one needing review needs someone to investigate the recorded reason and compare persisted source records before another action is attempted. The reconciliation workflow reads first and records its finding on the matter timeline. It should not turn an uncertain prior result into a second execution simply because a user refreshed a screen.

Use an accepted matter and request a scope change. Have the owner state the reason and attach the source. Ask the Operations Reviewer to return one request for more evidence and approve another with a recorded reason. Find both decisions under the matter. Confirm the approved path retains the original record and produces a successor receipt rather than overwriting the earlier history.

Now mark an operation as needing review and have a second person reconcile it. They should compare the local source record with the receipt’s effect references, record the finding on the timeline and explain whether completion can be verified. This exercise shows whether the team can audit a disputed change from the records alone.

• Operations needing review — Receipts with an uncertain result and their failure reason.
• Matters for review — Matter records waiting for a completion decision.

See correction and reconciliation and the access plan.