{
  "artifact": "Matter Readiness Gap Check",
  "version": "synthetic-v2-kelly-aware",
  "privacy_note": "This sample is synthetic. It does not contain private claim facts, medical details, client names, claim identifiers, settlement information, or live firm data.",
  "positioning_note": "This is not a replacement for a practice-management system, document-management system, fact-management product, or internal workflow. It tests whether narrow exceptions, handoffs, stale follow-ups, ownerless tasks, and review gates still fall between existing systems.",
  "workflow": {
    "name": "Document-heavy claim readiness and exception handling",
    "matter_reference": "DEMO-GAP-001",
    "status": "Readiness gap check",
    "next_deadline": "2026-05-17",
    "owner": "Practice manager / matter coordinator",
    "reviewer": "Solicitor"
  },
  "incumbent_stack_boundary": [
    {
      "system": "Actionstep / Clio / Smokeball",
      "assumed_strength": "Broad practice management, workflow automation, intake, matter records, tasks, client communications, billing, and reporting.",
      "gap_test": "Do exceptions, handoffs, stale follow-ups, or review gates still require manual ownership outside the configured workflow?"
    },
    {
      "system": "NetDocuments",
      "assumed_strength": "Document and email management, DMS-native search, filing, bundling, and secure AI around documents.",
      "gap_test": "Does the team still need a matter-readiness view after documents are stored or filed?"
    },
    {
      "system": "Mary Technology",
      "assumed_strength": "Fact management, chronology generation, document review, and evidence-grounded work product.",
      "gap_test": "Is the problem really fact extraction/chronology work, or is it a smaller workflow ownership gap before that category is needed?"
    }
  ],
  "source_trail": [
    {
      "id": "email-001",
      "type": "email",
      "date": "2026-05-02",
      "from": "Client",
      "summary": "Client says documents were sent, but the exported trail does not show whether the current workflow status is complete.",
      "signal": "Status unclear outside the standard path"
    },
    {
      "id": "email-002",
      "type": "email",
      "date": "2026-05-03",
      "from": "Third-party admin",
      "summary": "A record can be released once signed authority is received.",
      "signal": "Review-gated follow-up"
    },
    {
      "id": "doc-001",
      "type": "document filename",
      "date": "2026-05-03",
      "from": "Client upload",
      "summary": "Scanned invoice and two photos received. Filename does not identify whether the upload satisfies the open request.",
      "signal": "Purpose unclear"
    },
    {
      "id": "calendar-001",
      "type": "manual deadline",
      "date": "2026-05-17",
      "from": "Firm note",
      "summary": "Review bundle due before advice call.",
      "signal": "Ownerless review dependency"
    }
  ],
  "gap_items": [
    {
      "item": "Signed authority follow-up",
      "status": "review_gated",
      "likely_owner": "Matter coordinator",
      "why_it_matters": "A third party will not release records until authority is confirmed.",
      "next_step": "Prepare internal draft for approval.",
      "review_gate": "lawyer_review_before_send"
    },
    {
      "item": "Document status unclear",
      "status": "unclear",
      "likely_owner": "Paralegal",
      "why_it_matters": "The file exists, but the trail does not show whether it satisfies the request.",
      "next_step": "Ask owner to confirm document purpose.",
      "review_gate": "escalate_if_disputed"
    },
    {
      "item": "Review bundle readiness",
      "status": "ownerless",
      "likely_owner": "Solicitor / coordinator",
      "why_it_matters": "A deadline exists, but readiness ownership is unclear.",
      "next_step": "Assign readiness owner.",
      "review_gate": "solicitor_decides_sufficiency"
    },
    {
      "item": "Standard workflow already tracks this",
      "status": "already_solved",
      "likely_owner": "Practice manager",
      "why_it_matters": "If the PMS/DMS already tracks owner, status, date, and review gate, no extra layer is needed.",
      "next_step": "Mark as handled.",
      "review_gate": "no_prototype_needed"
    }
  ],
  "urgent_items": [
    {
      "date": "2026-05-05",
      "item": "Authority follow-up",
      "consequence": "Record may not arrive before review bundle.",
      "owner": "Paralegal",
      "next_action": "Route draft for approval.",
      "review_status": "ready_for_lawyer_review"
    },
    {
      "date": "2026-05-13",
      "item": "Readiness owner check",
      "consequence": "The team may assume someone else has confirmed status.",
      "owner": "Matter coordinator",
      "next_action": "Assign owner or mark already solved.",
      "review_status": "human_ownership_required"
    }
  ],
  "follow_up_drafts": [
    {
      "recipient": "Client",
      "purpose": "Clarify authority and document status",
      "draft_body": "Could you please confirm whether the signed authority has been completed and whether the uploaded file is intended to satisfy the open request?",
      "supporting_references": ["email-001", "email-002"],
      "send_status": "not_sent",
      "reviewer": "Solicitor"
    },
    {
      "recipient": "Internal owner",
      "purpose": "Assign readiness owner",
      "draft_body": "Can you confirm who owns the readiness check before the upcoming review, or whether this is already fully handled in the existing workflow?",
      "supporting_references": ["calendar-001"],
      "send_status": "not_sent",
      "reviewer": "Practice manager / solicitor"
    }
  ],
  "lawyer_review_queue": [
    {
      "item": "Decide whether the existing workflow already handles this",
      "reason_for_review": "The proof should not create work if the current PMS, DMS, or internal process already owns the status, follow-up, and review gate.",
      "source_material": ["email-001", "calendar-001"],
      "suggested_action": "Practice manager or matter owner to mark as gap or already solved.",
      "risk_note": "AI must not decide operational ownership.",
      "decision_required": "Gap worth prototyping or already solved"
    },
    {
      "item": "Review whether bundle can proceed if status is unclear",
      "reason_for_review": "Unclear status may affect whether the review bundle is complete enough.",
      "source_material": ["email-001", "calendar-001"],
      "suggested_action": "Solicitor to decide whether to proceed or wait.",
      "risk_note": "AI must not decide legal sufficiency.",
      "decision_required": "Proceed with partial bundle or chase first"
    }
  ]
}