Technology Assisted Review (TAR), or some variation of it, has been dominating the document review conversation for nearly a decade now. From TAR to Continuous Active Learning (CAL) to the expanding capabilities of Generative AI in eDiscovery, industry narratives often position automation as the primary solution to control costs, expedite timelines, and manage expanding data volumes. While these tools do offer significant value in many contexts, it is important to recognize that traditional, linear document review remains relevant, and sometimes preferable.
When Linear Review Wins
In my role at Proteus, my team engages with these eDiscovery technology daily. We continue to streamline and enhance document review workflows for our clients. But we do still encounter scenarios where the deliberate pace and precision of linear review deliver a better result.
Here are a few examples where traditional review might be the best choice:
- Complex Excel Spreadsheets
Traditional review methods provide clear advantages when reviewing spreadsheets that contain embedded formulas, multiple tabs, hidden rows, or color-coded annotations. Technology-assisted review tools are improving but frequently fall short when interpreting contextual relationships within data-dense documents such as Excel files. Human reviewers are better positioned to detect nuances and anomalies that may not surface through algorithmic analysis. - Sequenced or Evolving Communications
In certain matters, the order in which communications occur holds legal significance. Examples include prolonged negotiations, internal compliance assessments, or evolving interpretations of contractual terms. In these instances, linear review allows for contextual understanding that may be diminished when documents are isolated by topic or keyword. - Low Volume, High Sensitivity Matters
Investigations, internal audits, or narrowly scoped regulatory reviews often involve a limited number of documents but carry significant reputational or legal risk. In such scenarios, linear review enables full visibility and discretion over each document, facilitating informed decision-making and mitigating the risks of overproduction or omission. - When Transparency is a Strategic Advantage
While advanced review technologies can be implemented in a defensible manner, there are cases where opposing parties or judicial officers may lack familiarity or confidence in such workflows. In these circumstances, linear review offers a straightforward, easily articulated approach that can help avoid procedural disputes and support a clear, defensible record. Proteus has worked with numerous clients to develop and document transparent QC protocols for both traditional and technology-assisted workflows.
A Deliberate Approach to Workflow Design
The key consideration is not whether to use technology-assisted review or linear review. Rather, it is determining which methodology, or combination of methodologies, best serves the specific objectives of the matter.
The same way that linear review is not a relic of the past, CAL or Generative AI should not be applied reflexively. Each matter warrants a deliberate analysis of volume, content type, production deadlines, budget parameters, and defensibility expectations.
This is a great topic to discuss with your eDiscovery partner. For example, at Proteus, our review workflows are developed and managed by experienced attorneys. We do not advocate for technology simply for its own sake. We advise on workflows that support efficient, defensible outcomes aligned with the legal team’s strategy and obligations.
