Collector: capabilities and limits

Begin with the evidence need

• A useful starting point from the matter

  Review suggested evidence needs grounded in disputed facts, strategy, available material and prior collection coverage. Reuse a sufficient answer or pending request before asking for the same material again.

• A request a person can understand

  Name the requesting attorney, matter, purpose and person. Describe the subject, participants and period without requiring a folder name. The person can clarify the request before accepting its exact revision.

Find with permission

• Four permissions with different reach

  Guided window sharing, local discovery, disclosure of findings and collection each carry their own authority. A support code or model suggestion cannot grant access. Wider sources, recipients or purposes require deliberate new permission.

• Search the authorized sources

  Combine names, exact terms, people, dates, attachments and meaning within permitted sources. Show indexing progress, freshness and exceptions. Local extraction may create working representations; it does not itself authorize disclosure or transfer.

Keep the evidence behind the evidence

• Follow the life of the document

  Inspect available earlier versions, tracked edits, comments and related transmissions. Keep exact originals and source-reported attribution distinct from file properties or inferred differences. Unavailable history remains a named gap.

• Return identified copies for review

  Connect accepted scope, original content, source identity and delivery receipts. Preserve unresolved attachments, versions and transfer exceptions. The attorney receives material to review; delivery alone does not establish relevance, admissibility or fulfillment.

• Pause and finish with an account

  Keep pause, scope changes and collection closeout distinct. Show what was received and what remains unresolved. Ending collection does not erase retained copies, litigation holds or a decision the attorney still needs to make.

Limits

• Search describes the sources and versions actually reached. It cannot establish that every relevant item was found.
• Source support and permission determine which history can be acquired. Missing revisions or comments remain explicit.
• The person may be a client, employee or witness. Their role does not imply the requesting firm represents them.
• A delivered copy still needs counsel's review; permissions to publish or produce it are separate.

What BRON refuses

• Treat a search request as permission to collect.

  Finding, showing and transferring material require their own authorized scope. A prompt cannot expand that scope.

• Turn no matches into no evidence.

  Unavailable sources, partial indexing and missing history remain limitations of the search, not facts about what exists.

• Invent an editor, timestamp or document history.

  Attribution must retain its source and uncertainty. File properties and inferred differences do not establish who made a change.

• Treat a receipt as the attorney's decision.

  Received bytes, verified identity, substantive review and request fulfillment are different states.

We know what we need to establish. How do we find the material without knowing where it is kept?

Turn an evidence need into an authorized search, identified originals and a record of what arrived. Keep the person, permission and review connected.

Inputs

• Matter questions and disputed facts
• Existing evidence, requests and collection coverage
• The person's authorized sources and exact accepted request

Outputs

• Identified original material and delivery receipts
• Document history with source attribution and exceptions
• Attorney review and grounded follow-up