Tutorial ID | T-08 |
Section | Evidence Processing |
Title | Selecting and Organising Key Pages for Detailed Review |
Subtitle | Build a key-page set that's complete, focused, consistently organized, and tied to the case's issues. |
Before You Begin
You have already identified the pages that matter in the case, using Search, AI Chat, or filters.
You know the issues the case needs to address, such as liability, causation, treatment, or damages.
What You Will Accomplish
By the end of this tutorial, you will have a key-page set that's complete enough to trust, focused enough to work with, consistently organized, and tied to the issues it's meant to support.
Why Does This Tutorial Matter
Once you've found the pages that matter, the next step is bringing them together into a working set you can actually review and build on. This is the bridge between finding the signal and using it — the set you select here is what you'll extract events from, generate report sections from, and ultimately stand behind.
A page left out at this stage tends to stay out — missed in the events, missed in the report — so completeness here matters more than at any later point. Get the set too big and review becomes a second full read; get it disorganized, undocumented, or disconnected from the case's issues, and it stops making detailed review easier at all.
Steps
Build a working set of what matters — separate the pages that carry the facts from the bulk of the file, so detailed review has a defined scope.
Organise the set to match the analysis — arrange it the way you'll work with it, such as by episode, provider, or date.
Check the set is complete — confirm no relevant page has been left out before relying on it as your foundation.
Keep it focused — leave out pages that don't bear on the questions the case has to answer.
Mark each page's role using labels, so the structure is visible and filterable.
Revisit the set as you learn — add pages that prove to matter and remove those that don't, as your understanding of the case develops.
Note The key-page set is the foundation the rest of the case is built on. A page left out here tends to stay out — missed in the events, missed in the report — so completeness at this stage matters more than at any later one. |
Tip Organise the key pages the way the report will read. If the chronology will run by treatment episode, group the pages that way now — the work you do here is work you will not repeat when you build the report. |
What to Do if Something Goes Wrong
The list below covers the most common problems when selecting and organizing key pages. Each entry follows the same pattern: what you'll notice, why it likely happened, a real example, and how to fix it.
Problem: Nearly every page in the case ends up marked as key, and the detailed review turns into a second full read.
Likely cause: Pages were selected without checking each one against a specific issue in the case, so anything that looked broadly relevant got included.
Example: A reviewer marks over half the case as key pages, and colleagues reviewing the set afterward have almost as much to read as the original file.
Fix:
Select a page only when it bears on an issue in the case — liability, causation, treatment, or damages.
Prefer the pages that establish a fact over those that merely mention it.
Keep the key set small enough to be reviewed properly.
Problem: An issue the case needs to address has no supporting pages in the key set.
Likely cause: The selection was too sparse, and pages that actually support an issue were passed over.
Example: The key set has no page addressing causation, even though the underlying records include a specialist's opinion that speaks to it directly.
Fix:
Check the key set against the issues to confirm each issue is covered.
Revisit the documents for the points where you expected evidence but found none.
Add pages that fill those gaps before moving on.
Problem: Key pages can't be navigated, and different reviewers organize them differently.
Likely cause: No consistent dimension was agreed for grouping key pages, so structure varies from one reviewer to the next.
Example: One reviewer groups key pages by provider while another groups the same case by date, and neither can quickly find what the other has flagged.
Fix:
Group key pages by a consistent dimension — issue, provider, treatment phase, or date.
Use labels and colour coding consistently so the grouping is visible at a glance.
Agree the scheme with anyone else working the case.
Problem: It's unclear why a particular page was selected as key, and the selection is hard to defend or hand over.
Likely cause: Pages were chosen on instinct alone, without a written criterion for what counts as a key page.
Example: A new reviewer takes over a case and can't tell why certain pages were flagged as key while similar ones were left out.
Fix:
Decide and write down the criteria for what counts as a key page.
Apply the same criteria across the case and across reviewers.
Note briefly why a page was selected, so the reasoning isn't lost.
Problem: A key page is hard to use when building the argument because it's not clear which issue it actually supports.
Likely cause: A page was selected without tying it to a specific issue or event, so its role in the case isn't visible.
Example: A key page documenting a treatment date sits in the set with no indication of whether it supports causation, damages, or something else.
Fix:
Tie each key page to the issue or event it supports.
Use labels to map pages to issues so a filter can assemble the evidence for each.
Confirm every issue has the pages it needs to be made out.
Problem: New documents arrive, but the key page set still reflects the case as it looked at the first review.
Likely cause: The key set was fixed early and never revisited as new documents were added to the case.
Example: A specialist's report arrives months after the initial review and is never checked against the existing key set, so it's never added even though it's directly relevant.
Fix:
Review new documents against the existing key set when they arrive.
Add newly relevant pages and re-examine selections the new material affects.
Keep the key set current rather than fixed at the first pass.
Summary
Your key-page set is now selected against clear, documented criteria tied to the case's issues, organized consistently, focused enough to review properly, and kept current as new documents arrive — the difference between a methodical review and a second slog through the whole file.