High-conflict financial disputes often begin with scattered records and an unclear review objective. Before tracing or export, the workspace should answer practical scoping questions: which matter is active, which accounts are in scope, which parties and roles apply, and what output counsel expects at the end of the review.
What scoping establishes
Matter scoping is not decorative metadata. It frames what selected records are allowed to support, which tracing assumptions may be tested, and how exported workpapers will be labeled for attorney or expert review.
Parties, case posture, and the financial question under review.
Accounts, date ranges, and record types selected for this workflow.
What the platform will organize versus what humans must decide.
Scoping workflow
Identify the matter, authorized users, and the review objective for selected financial records.
State whether the review targets separate-property tracing, commingling analysis, or another bounded ledger question.
Document which accounts, statements, and supporting records are in scope for this pass.
Clarify whether the near-term deliverable is a V1 single-claim LIBR workpaper or preparatory record organization.
Reasonable expectations
Appropriate use
Organize selected records, document assumptions, and prepare attorney-reviewable workpapers for professional evaluation.
Out of scope
Treating software output as legal advice, an admissibility ruling, or a substitute for counsel or retained experts.
Scoping keeps later tracing disciplined. When assumptions, parties, and record selection are visible from the start, reviewers can test whether the workpaper fits the matter instead of reverse-engineering intent from a final number.