Evidence, work product, valuation, and audit, kept in separate rooms, on purpose. BETA
Split the case workspace into distinct evidence, work-product, valuation, IME-neutral, and audit views, so privileged analysis, neutral opinion work, and the record itself never leak into each other. Each view has its own access boundary: what a defense analyst sees is not what a neutral IME reviewer or an auditor sees on the same case.
Five views, one case, no cross-contamination.
Evidence holds the underlying record. Work Product holds privileged strategy and analysis. Valuation holds damages and benchmark modeling. IME-Neutral strips out advocacy work product for the evaluator's view. Audit logs every read and write across all four. Each contributor only sees the view their role is assigned to.
Not the same thing as the Neutrality Firewall.
Neutrality Firewall keeps outside influence away from a neutral evaluator's opinion. Privilege-Aware Workspace Split is the structural layer underneath: the access-control boundaries that keep evidence, privileged work product, valuation, and the audit log in their own rooms across the whole case team, evaluator included. Both work together, from different angles.
A structural control, not a substitute for privilege review by counsel.
Workspace views reduce the risk that privileged analysis lands somewhere it shouldn't, in front of a neutral evaluator, an auditor, or an outside party. That's an access-control feature, not a legal determination.
What counts as privileged, what may be redacted, and what ultimately gets produced or disclosed on a case stays a decision for counsel. The workspace split organizes access; it does not make privilege calls on anyone's behalf.
From one workspace to five separate rooms.
Three steps, set once per case.
Evidence, work product, valuation, IME-neutral, and audit, mapped to who's on the case.
Only the assigned view, nothing else on the case, by default.
Every read and write across all views, for later review.
Who separates their views.
Teams where privileged analysis and a neutral opinion have to coexist on the same case.
Keep strategy and valuation notes out of the record that gets produced.
For law firmsEvaluators see the record, not the referring party's advocacy work product.
For IME orgsSeparate internal claims analysis from what an outside expert or auditor sees.
For TPAsPrivilege-Aware Workspace Split, answered.
It splits a single case workspace into distinct views, evidence, work product, valuation, IME-neutral, and audit, so privileged analysis, neutral opinion work, and the underlying record stay separated instead of sitting in one undifferentiated file.
No. It's a structural control that reduces the risk of privileged material landing in the wrong view, not a substitute for legal privilege review by counsel. Your firm's own privilege determinations, redaction sign-off, and production decisions still happen the way they always have.
The Neutrality Firewall protects the independence of a neutral opinion itself by blocking referral-party influence from reaching the evaluator. Privilege-Aware Workspace Split is the broader structural layer: it separates privileged work product, valuation, evidence, and the neutral-facing view from each other across the whole case team.
Every read and write across all views on the case: who accessed evidence, work product, or valuation, and when. It's the same chain-of-custody logging behind Audit Trail & Chain of Custody, scoped to this workspace.
Yes, in beta. Privilege-Aware Workspace Split is live and testable now, and we're refining the view boundaries hands-on with early customers. If your use case is a good fit, we'll work with you directly.
Give your neutral reviewer their own room.
Join the beta and set up view boundaries on one of your own active cases. Handled under our BAA; never used to train a model.