Tutorial ID | T-26 |
Section | Reporting & Billing |
Title | Creating a full case report |
Subtitle | Assemble every workflow output into one correctly ordered, fully configured, human-reviewed final report. |
Before You Begin
You have run all workflows needed for this case and confirmed each one shows a completed status.
You know the client's preferences for back-reference links, and whether this report is a draft or a final version.
What You Will Accomplish
By the end of this tutorial, every report you assemble will have a complete cover page, a logical order, correctly configured headers, footers, and watermarks, and a back-reference setting that matches the client's preference. You will also know how to catch duplicated content, missing workflows, and unreviewed drafts before a report reaches the attorney or reviewer.
Why Does this Tutorial Matter
A final report is assembled from multiple workflow outputs, templates, and uploaded documents, each produced under different conditions. Assembling it carefully — in the right order, with the right settings, and with a full human review — is what turns those separate pieces into a single document an attorney or reviewer can trust and act on.
Skip that care, and a missing cover page gets a report returned before it's even reviewed, overlapping workflow outputs duplicate the same finding, sections out of order force the reader to jump back and forth, and a report shared before a full review — or before every relevant workflow has finished — can misrepresent the case and require correction after it's already been shared.
What to Do if Something Goes Wrong
The list below covers the most common problems when assembling a full case report. Each entry follows the same pattern: what you'll notice, why it likely happened, a real example, and how to fix it.
Problem: A report reaches the recipient without a cover page identifying the case, report type, and date.
Likely cause: The report was finalized without checking that a cover page template had been added to the first page.
Example: A chronology report is shared with an attorney with no cover page, and the attorney has to open the body of the report to figure out which case it belongs to.
Fix:
Before finalizing the report, check whether a cover page appears on the first page.
If none is present, create a new version of the report and add the appropriate cover page template.
Once the cover page is in place, confirm that all required fields are correctly populated.
Cross-reference each field against the case record to confirm accuracy.
Review the cover page in the context of the full report, confirming it appears first and its identifiers match the rest of the document.
Problem: The same finding, diagnosis, or event appears more than once across different parts of the final report.
Likely cause: Different workflows covered overlapping areas of the case, and the same event was described from different angles without being recognized as one occurrence.
Example: A surgical intervention is described once in a medical summary section and again, worded slightly differently, in a conclusions section.
Fix:
After running all workflows, read through the assembled report and flag any statement, finding, or event that appears more than once.
For each duplicate, use Search or AI Chat to confirm whether both entries refer to the same event rather than two separate occurrences.
Keep the most complete, accurate, and well-referenced version of the content.
If content genuinely belongs in more than one section, condense it to a single concise sentence in each additional section instead of repeating it in full.
Problem: A reader has to jump back and forth between sections, or encounters conclusions before the evidence that supports them.
Likely cause: Workflow outputs and templates were assembled without defining the correct order first, so the report doesn't follow a logical sequence.
Example: A conclusions section appears before the chronology that explains how the case reached those conclusions, leaving the reader without context.
Fix:
Open the report through the Report tool.
Before making changes, define the correct order for all sections, based on the case's logical progression — for example, cover page, pre-event chronology, post-event chronology, medical summary, billing summary, conclusions.
Create a new version of the report, adding all templates and AI-generated outputs in that defined order.
Use Preview to review the report from start to finish, noting any point where the sequence feels abrupt or out of place.
If a section is out of place, correct the order and preview again before proceeding.
Once the preview confirms the correct order, create the final report and review it in full before sharing it.
Problem: A finalized report is missing page identifiers, or carries the wrong watermark status.
Likely cause: Header, footer, and watermark settings weren't checked before the report was finalized.
Example: A final version of a report still carries a draft watermark, raising doubts about whether it's the approved version.
Fix:
Open the report through the Report tool and go to Settings.
Define the correct page header and footer, and watermark settings, based on the case and the recipient's expectations.
Check the page header and footer settings to confirm the correct templates are chosen.
Check the watermark text — apply a draft watermark if the report is a draft, or confirm no draft watermark remains if it's final.
Use Preview to review the report before saving, and correct any setting that's out of place.
Once the preview confirms the correct settings, create the final report and review it in full before sharing it.
Problem: The final report shows or hides back-reference links against what the client actually wants.
Likely cause: The Remove Links setting was toggled without confirming the client's preference first.
Example: A client who requires visible back-references for validation receives a clean report with all links hidden.
Fix:
Before correcting the report, confirm the client's preference regarding back-reference links.
Open the report and create a new version using the Settings tool.
Locate the Remove Links option.
Turn Remove Links off if the client requires visible back-references, or on if the client prefers a link-free report.
Generate a preview and check a representative sample of sections to confirm the setting was applied consistently throughout the document.
Problem: A section in the finalized report ends abruptly or contains no content.
Likely cause: The report was assembled or finalized before every workflow contributing to it had finished running.
Example: A billing summary section is blank because the workflow that generates it was still running when the report was assembled.
Fix:
Go to Workflows and review the status of every workflow that contributes to the report.
If any workflow is still running, wait for it to complete, checking periodically for a Completed status.
Once every workflow is complete, open each output and confirm all expected sections are present.
Decide whether to delete the incomplete report and start over, or create a new version of the existing report.
If creating a new version, review the updated list of available outputs, add the ones that were missing, and arrange all components in the correct order.
Use Preview to confirm the report is complete and correctly ordered, then save and finalize it.
Problem: A report reaches an attorney or reviewer before anyone has done a full end-to-end review of the assembled document.
Likely cause: The report was shared immediately after export, without a final human check across all its combined workflow outputs, templates, and documents.
Example: A report goes out with an unsupported statement carried over from one workflow's output, and the error isn't caught until the attorney raises it.
Fix:
Contact the recipient and let them know the version they received is a preliminary draft that shouldn't be used until a reviewed version follows.
Open the exported report and conduct a full end-to-end review from start to finish, flagging every error, unsupported statement, inconsistency, or missing section.
For each flagged issue, verify the correct information against the source documents, Search, or AI Chat, and correct the report.
Save the corrected report and clearly identify it as the final reviewed version, for example with an updated date or version label.
Share the corrected version and confirm the previous version has been disregarded and replaced.
Problem: A report looks complete but doesn't reflect the clinical significance of a rare diagnosis or unusual injury type in the case.
Likely cause: The standard set of workflows was run without checking whether the case involved a rare diagnosis or injury type that needed an additional, tailored workflow.
Example: A case involving a rare genetic disorder gets a brief, generic mention in the medical summary instead of the depth of analysis the diagnosis actually requires.
Fix:
Review the Case Summary, Expected Outcome field, and medical records to identify any rare diagnoses or atypical injury types.
If one is identified, open each completed workflow's output and evaluate whether it addresses the condition with sufficient depth.
If the standard workflows don't cover it adequately, check whether a specific workflow already exists for that diagnosis or injury type and run it.
If none exists, create one with a tailored prompt that addresses the condition directly.
Once the additional workflow runs, confirm its output reflects the depth of detail the case requires, refining the prompt and rerunning if it doesn't.
Add the output to the report in the correct position, confirming it integrates logically with the surrounding sections.
Review the finalized report as a whole to confirm no other rare diagnoses or injury types were overlooked.
Tip Before sharing any report, run through these checks in order: cover page, workflow status, section order, formatting settings, link preference, and a full human read-through. These problems tend to compound, so catching one early often prevents several others. |
Summary
Every report you assemble now has a cover page, a logical section order, correctly configured formatting, a back-reference setting that matches the client, all contributing workflows complete, and a full human review — so what reaches the attorney or reviewer is the finished report, not a draft.