If you want to track large numbers of documents that are responsive outside the four corners rule, what is the best practice?

Setting up a third-neutral choice on the coding field is an effective way to track large numbers of responsive documents while accommodating the needs outside the four corners rule. This approach allows reviewers to identify documents that may not explicitly fit within predefined categories but are still relevant to the case or investigation. By implementing a neutral option, it enables a broader range of classifications, capturing documents that may fall into gray areas or that require nuanced consideration beyond a binary responsive/non-responsive classification.

This flexibility also facilitates improved collaboration and communication among review team members who might interpret the relevance of certain documents differently. It encourages a more comprehensive review process, ultimately leading to more accurate and thorough document categorization.

The other options do not directly enhance the ability to track responsive documents effectively. For instance, using a different coding system entirely may create confusion and hinder consistency in categorization. Increasing the review team size could improve efficiency but does not fundamentally address the challenge of tracking documents responsive outside traditional classifications. Limiting the number of documents reviewed could lead to the omission of relevant information, which contradicts the goal of thorough and accurate tracking in document reviews.