Tutorial ID | T-33 |
Section | Foundation |
Title | Inviting External Experts or Colleagues to View a Case |
Subtitle | Choose the right sharing method, permission level, and scope so external experts see only what they need. |
Before You Begin
You know whether the person you're inviting has a Case Chronology account, and whether they need to work inside the platform or only view the case.
You know exactly which parts of the case the person needs to see, and whether any of it is privileged or unvalidated.
What You Will Accomplish
By the end of this tutorial, you will know how to choose between Case Share and Share Access for each person you invite, grant only the access and permission level they need, and keep that access current as their involvement begins and ends.
Why Does This Tutorial Matter
A case holds sensitive medical and legal information, and every share is a decision about who is allowed to see it. Choosing the right method, the narrowest scope, and the correct permission level for each person is what lets you bring in colleagues and external experts without losing control of the case.
Get it wrong, and a Case Share copy leaves your control entirely and drifts from your version with no way to recall it, a Share Access link gets forwarded to someone it was never meant for, a person sees more of the case — or has more permission over it — than their task requires, and access that's never revisited stays live long after someone's involvement in the case has ended.
Steps
Decide the method for each person — Case Share for someone with a platform account who will work in the case, Share Access for someone outside the platform who only needs to view it.
Verify the destination — confirm the receiving account for a Case Share, or confirm the link reaches only the intended recipient for Share Access.
Decide precisely what the person needs to see, and share only that scope rather than the whole case by default.
Confirm the person has the appropriate agreement or role before sharing sensitive medical or legal material by either method.
Choose the least privileged role that fits the person's task, reserving edit access for those who genuinely need to change the report.
Treat a Share Access link as a key — send it only to the intended person, and don't let it be forwarded or posted anywhere else.
Remember a Case Share is an independent copy — agree with the recipient which version is authoritative and keep edits in the right one.
Once the person's involvement ends, disable their Share Access link or review their shared copy so the case isn't left reachable.
Record who the case was shared with, by which method, and when.
Tip Match the method to the relationship, and set access to expire with the work, not with the case. When someone finishes their review, removing their access is as much a part of finishing as filing their report. |
What to Do if Something Goes Wrong
The list below covers the most common problems when inviting others into a case. Each entry follows the same pattern: what you'll notice, why it likely happened, a real example, and how to fix it.
Problem: A colleague who needs to work inside the case only gets a view-only link, or a person who just needed to look ends up with a full independent copy in their own account.
Likely cause: The method wasn't matched to what the person actually needs — Case Share for someone who will work in the case inside the platform, Share Access for someone who only needs to view it from outside.
Example: An external expert who only needs to review a section is given a full Case Share copy, handing over material that can no longer be recalled.
Fix:
Decide whether the person needs their own working copy of the case, which calls for Case Share, or only needs to view it from outside, which calls for Share Access.
Use Case Share for a colleague, team, or firm on the platform who will collaborate deeply on the case.
Use Share Access for an external expert or party who only needs to see the case.
When in doubt, choose the more limited option — a view link — rather than copying the whole case.
Problem: Two versions of the case no longer match, and it's unclear which one is authoritative.
Likely cause: A case was shared using Case Share, which places an independent copy in the recipient's account — one that will not stay in sync as either of you continues to work on it.
Example: A colleague receives a Case Share copy and adds their own notes, while the original case is updated separately with new documents, and neither version now reflects the other.
Fix:
Before using Case Share, confirm the recipient genuinely needs a full, independent copy rather than just a view.
Remove or withhold anything that shouldn't travel with the copy.
Agree with the recipient which version is authoritative going forward.
Record what was shared, with whom, and when, since the copy will not stay in sync with yours.
Problem: Someone who was never invited is able to open the case through a Share Access link.
Likely cause: The link was forwarded by its original recipient, or wasn't sent with any limits on who could use it.
Example: A link sent to one expert for review is forwarded to a colleague at their firm, who opens the case without ever being formally invited.
Fix:
Send the link only to the intended recipient, individually, where the material is sensitive.
Use any available limits on the link, such as expiry, scope, or access restrictions, to constrain it.
Revoke the link as soon as it's no longer needed.
Review periodically which links are still live.
Problem: A person can see far more of the case than their task actually requires.
Likely cause: The whole case was shared by default instead of the narrowest scope that would let the person do their work.
Example: An adjuster who only needs a billing summary is given access to the full case, including unrelated medical records and internal notes.
Fix:
Before inviting someone, decide precisely what they need to see, and why.
Grant access to the narrowest scope that lets them do their work.
Avoid sharing the entire case by default when a limited view would suffice.
Problem: A person given access to the case can edit the report when they only needed to view it.
Likely cause: The role assigned to the invitation wasn't checked before sending, so a broader permission level than necessary was granted by default.
Example: An external expert asked only to review a section is given edit rights, and unintentionally changes a statement in the report.
Fix:
Choose the least privileged role that fits the person's task — view-only wherever possible.
Reserve editing rights for those who genuinely need to change the report.
Confirm the role before sending the invitation.
Problem: Someone who shouldn't see internal analysis or privileged notes has access to them through a shared case.
Likely cause: The case wasn't checked for privileged or work-product content before the person was invited, so material they weren't entitled to see traveled with the share.
Example: Internal strategy notes are included in a case copied to an outside consultant who has no privilege covering that material.
Fix:
Identify any privileged or work-product content in the case.
Confirm whether the person you're inviting is entitled to see it.
Limit their access, or separate that material out, before inviting them — especially before using Case Share.
Problem: A case or a case link reaches an account or address that wasn't the intended recipient.
Likely cause: The recipient's email address or receiving account wasn't confirmed before the case was shared.
Example: A Case Share is sent to a mistyped account, exposing the case to someone with no role in the matter.
Fix:
Confirm the correct email address or account, and the identity of the person, before sharing.
Double-check the recipient's identity where the material is especially sensitive.
Send invitations individually rather than in bulk where sensitivity is high.
Confirm that the person received and accepted the invitation or link as expected.
Problem: A person who no longer has any involvement in the case still has access to it.
Likely cause: Access was never reviewed after the person's involvement ended, so a Share Access link stayed active or a Case Share copy was never checked on.
Example: An expert who finished their review six months ago can still open the case through a link that was never revoked.
Fix:
Review the list of people with access to each case periodically.
Revoke Share Access links as soon as a person's involvement ends.
Remember that a Case Share copy can't be revoked, so treat the decision to copy as the real point of control.
Keep a record of who has, and who has had, access.
Problem: A collaborator relies on a statement in the report without knowing it's still an unreviewed AI-generated draft.
Likely cause: The person wasn't told which parts of the report are AI-generated and still under review, so they had no way to tell a draft from a finding.
Example: An external expert cites a conclusion from the report in their own opinion, not realizing the statement had a low Validation Score and hadn't been checked yet.
Fix:
Tell collaborators which parts of the report are AI-generated and still under review.
Make clear that unvalidated content is a draft, not a finding.
Where possible, share the case only after validation, or clearly mark what remains to be checked.
Summary
Every person invited into a case now has the right method, the narrowest scope, and the correct permission level for what they actually need — with privileged material screened out, draft content flagged as unreviewed, and access reviewed and revoked once their involvement ends.