Problem with implementation of Legal Analytics Meta-Fields

Morgan

We've had a couple of discussions with the dev team about this and Harsh has proposed a solution that he and his team feel will be the most efficient.

For the most part Legal Analytics fields will be maintained as is they are, however when a new meta-field to legal analytics we will add a multi-select dropdown for associating the field to legal analytics group(s). Legal analytics groups will be managed by admins via a miscellaneous list. On the subscriber side, filters will be grouped by these legal analytics groups rather than proceeding stages.

There was concern that anything beyond this level of restructuring would severely impact the timeline as the legal analytics fields are using the same logic as other meta-fields and adjustments would have implications for field attributes (parent/dependent, add another etc).

Harsh has confirmed that if a field with the same label exists in multiple proceeding stages and references the same legal analytics group we can combine it into a single filter on the subscriber side. For examples if 'Expedited Procedure Requested' exists as a field in all 5 proceeding stages and has been linked to the 'Procedural Issues' legal analytics group, it will appear as a single filter on the subscriber side.

Unfortunately, in terms of creating the fields this means an instance of the field will still need to be created in each applicable proceeding stage. Harsh is going to confirm that we can duplicate a meta-field from a different proceeding stage/content type, so hopefully this will simplify the administration. 

Let me know if this makes sense to you or if you'd like to discuss further. 

Mel

Hi Melissa ,

I suppose that seems like the easiest option to implement from a technical perspective. I have a question though. What if we got rid of Proceeding Stages all together? Rather than trying to reorganize all the meta field logic to fit within the proceeding stages, we just strip it out, so that it is no longer relevant to how the database is structured. This is probably much more difficult than it sounds, but I've discovered another issue that needs to be addressed, which is making me question the whole idea of organizing documents by proceeding stage.

Yesterday when I was giving Paul and Irit and tour of the admin site yesterday, it dawned on me that when an admin user uploads a Dispute Document, they are required to select of proceeding stage before they can proceed to the next stage in the upload process. This made me realized that the proceeding stage field will be required for the data migration; however, this isn't data we currently capture in our document collection, and that means will have to manually review and assign proceedings stages to all 7000+ dispute documents in the document collection, which will be a massive undertaking. I believe this issue was overlooked in migration process so far, because Proceeding Stage was never included as a required field in the Meta Field Map: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Ho_yBR8gfCIqivmvkPy_hISkDGozdWsXxn46ImeQ-V4/edit#gid=0, nor was it ever list as a required hard coded field.

This makes me think that we may be better off removing proceeding stage as an aspect of relevant data, and proceed with organizing Legal Analytics meta by subject matter topic (Procedural, Jurisdiction, Merits, etc.), and make all fields available in all dispute document types.

Obviously this warrants further discussion. Let's have a call today, and then perhaps we can have another call with Harsh tomorrow morning, and decide how to proceed. Let me know what time works best for you.

Thanks,

Morgan

Are you available at 1:30 your time?

Mel

Hi Morgan ​ and Melissa ​,

One more change we need to do in admin side. when we make primary or alternative document grouping in dispute document  that time we are taking combination of dispute, proceeding stage and dispute document type to pull the data.

Now, we need to pull the grouping documents based on only dispute and document type combination.

Am I correct ? Because, Now, we will set proceeding stage as optional in dispute document master form.

Please confirm.

Hi Harsh ,

I'll let Melissa confirm, but yes, I think only requiring documents to have the same Document Type is sufficient to allow grouping to occur. 

Thanks,

Morgan

Harsh  

Yes, that's correct. Dispute Document groups can be created based on dispute and document type combination.

Mel

Hi Morgan ,

We are taking this change as high priority and start work on the Admin Side as per target process story.

1) https://industrialagency.tpondemand.com/restui/board.aspx?#page=userstory/15938

2) https://industrialagency.tpondemand.com/restui/board.aspx?#page=userstory/16043

3) Removing the Proceeding stage field for make Dispute Document grouping

We will deploy this change on server on Wednesday night Ahmadabad time.

Hope this is fine.

That's great. Thanks Harsh ​.

Morgan

Hi Morgan and Melissa ,

We need to also change the Legal analytics Sidebar rendering. For example, in admin side we are rendering side bar of Legal Analytics when user is doing tagging on document.

Currently, We are rendering the particular proceeding stage accordion inside side bar. But now, it will always display all legal analytics group accordion. And Also remove Processing Stage filter drop down from top pf the side bar.

Am I Right ? Please confirm.

Harsh  

Yes, this is correct.

Mel 

Hi Morgan ,

Can we remove Legal Analytics meta field entries from rebuild.investorstatelawguide.com ?

We need to upload legal analytic change and due to this we should remove legal analytics meta field entries.

Please confirm.

Hi Morgan ,

We have seen that there are only 4 meta field you have entered so we deleted those 4 legal analytics meta field from rebuild.islg.

Also, Today we have uploaded this change on both rebuild.islg and rebuilddemo.islg and move relevant target process stories in UAT.


Please clear your cache and refresh the page properly and then check it.

Great. Thanks Harsh . Deleting those 4 fields was fine.

I'll start building out of the Legal Analytics fields this morning, and report any issues that I come across.

Naomi , could you please perform UAT to confirm the requirements concerning the relevant cards are met (#15938 and #16043), but perform your testing on http://rebuilddemo.investorstatelawguide.com.

Thanks,

Morgan

Hi Morgan , 

I've tested both the above cards and have moved them to done. One card was split (#15938) as it has criteria pending the development of the subscriber side, but all criteria relevant to the admin side was tested and completed. 

Thanks, 

Naomi

Perfect. Thanks Naomi .

Morgan