How it works

Follow one matter through BRON.

North Harbor is a fictional commercial dispute. Follow it from the first inquiry to an approved memo and the next request. Each step shows what BRON prepared and what a person decided.

Illustration · fictional matter

1See the intakeSeptember 15, 2025

It starts with North Harbor's account.

North Harbor's operations team writes in through Rivera Law's intake form. They describe the cracked housings, attach the supply agreement and the defect report, and say the supplier claims notice came too late. BRON keeps the account, the documents and two open questions together and routes the inquiry to Elena.

Illustration · fictional matter

Inquiry

From: North Harbor · Firm intake form
Account: The supplier refused a credit for cracked housings in the April 4 delivery. It says North Harbor never gave notice in time. Our operations team says it did.
Documents: Supply agreement.pdf
defect-report.pdf
Open questions: When did the supplier first learn of the defect?
Was notice given in writing?
Responsible attorney: Elena Rivera

Inquiry receivedDone
Conflicts clearedDone
AcceptedDone
Engagement signedDone

Who decided: Elena cleared conflicts and accepted the matter. Sending the form didn't make North Harbor a client. Signing the engagement did.
What carried forward: The inquiry keeps its original account and documents.

Back to the start Next stepSee what the team knows

2See what the team knowsApril 22 and 24, 2026

Seven months later, two depositions disagree.

Garcia testified the supplier knew about the defect before May 4. Smith testified it knew only after. BRON puts the two passages side by side, links each to its page and line, and marks notice as disputed. It doesn't pick a winner.

Illustration · fictional matter

Was written notice of the defect given by May 4, 2025?

StatusDisputed

GarciaDeposition · April 22, 2026

“Before May 4.”

The supplier knew of the defect before May 4. Garcia attended the review meeting.

Garcia Dep. 118:4 118:4–12

SmithDeposition · April 24, 2026

“Only after May 4.”

The supplier knew of the defect only after May 4. Smith relies on correspondence he reviewed.

Smith Dep. 44:12 44:12–20

Who decided: Nobody yet. The question is open until counsel decides what the evidence shows.
What carried forward: Each account is linked to its page and line.

Previous stepSee the intake Back to the start Next stepInspect the missing evidence

3Inspect the missing evidenceApril 27, 2026

Both witnesses pointed at papers nobody brought.

Garcia mentioned meeting notes. Smith relied on correspondence. BRON turns that into one evidence need, with the reason it matters and the two places it might be: North Harbor's own files and the supplier's.

Illustration · fictional matter

Evidence need

The correspondence that sent the defect report, and the review-meeting notes

Why it matters: Either one could show when the supplier learned of the defect.
Where it might be: North Harbor Request through the client portal Sent by Elena Rivera
The supplier Request for production No. 1 Proposed, not served
Basis: Garcia 118:13–18 Recalls meeting notes. Did not bring them and does not have a copy.
Smith 44:15–20 Relied on correspondence that was not brought to the deposition.

Who decided: BRON proposed the need. Alex reviewed it and sent it to Elena.
What carried forward: The missing material becomes a specific request.

Previous stepSee what the team knows Back to the start Next stepOpen the request

4Open the requestApril 28, 2026

Elena asks North Harbor for its own copies.

The request goes to North Harbor through the client portal. It says who's asking, what's needed, why it matters and which dates it covers. Elena holds the request for production to the supplier until she sees what North Harbor has.

Illustration · fictional matter

What Garcia sees in the portal

Client portal

From: Elena Rivera
What: The email that sent the defect report to the supplier, its attachments, and any notes from the review meeting
Why: These could show when the supplier learned of the defect.
When: May 1–7, 2025

Collect it from your Mac with BRON for Mac

Who decided: Elena sent the request. Garcia decides what to collect.
What carried forward: The request explains why the evidence matters.

Previous stepInspect the missing evidence Back to the start Next stepSee the collection on Garcia's Mac

5See the collection on Garcia's MacApril 29, 2026

Garcia collects with BRON for Mac.

He picks Apple Mail and the North Harbor folder, reviews the scope, and accepts it before anything is copied. Copies run in the background until he pauses them, and each transfer gets a receipt. The meeting notes weren't in what he chose, so they're recorded as not found.

Illustration · fictional matter

Collector

Steps: Choose the sources Garcia picks Apple Mail and one folder. Nothing else on the Mac is read.
Accept the scope He reviews what will be copied and accepts it before anything moves.
Copy and receipt Copies run in the background until he pauses them. Each transfer gets a receipt.
Sent files: defect-email.eml Garcia to Smith · May 2, 2025, 9:14 AM Transfer receipt
defect-report.pdf Attachment to the email Transfer receipt
Not found: Not found Review-meeting notes: not in the sources Garcia chose

Requests written inside Collector from an evidence gap, with separate choices to search, show findings and send files, are in development.

Who decided: Garcia chose the sources and accepted the scope.
What carried forward: Each file keeps the source it came from.

Previous stepOpen the request Back to the start Next stepCompare the updated matter

6Compare the updated matterApril 29, 2026

The email lands on the matter.

It arrives with a transfer receipt and waits for Elena's review. It isn't shown in the client portal. Compare the matter before and after. The correspondence gap is closed, the notes are still missing, and notice is still disputed, because an email sent on May 2 doesn't show when Smith read it.

Illustration · fictional matter

North Harbor · Notice of defect

Compare the updated matter

Before

Correspondence: Missing
Review-meeting notes: Missing
Notice: Disputed

After

Correspondence: Received defect-email.eml
Sent May 2, 2025. On the matter, waiting for Elena's review. Not shown in the client portal.
Transfer receipt
Review-meeting notes: Not found
Notice: Disputed
Still open: When Smith received or read the email

Who decided: Nobody yet. The email is with Elena for review.
What carried forward: The returned material goes back to the matter that asked for it.

Previous stepSee the collection on Garcia's Mac Back to the start Next stepReview the prepared work

7Review the prepared workApril 30, 2026

Alex revises the memo.

Version 3 was held for review before the email turned up. Version 4 quotes it, keeps both depositions, and says plainly what the email does and doesn't show. Every sentence links to its source.

Illustration · fictional matter

Notice memorandum

Garcia testified that the supplier knew of the defect before May 4, 2025. Garcia Dep. 118:4

Smith testified that it knew only after that date. Smith Dep. 44:12

On May 2, 2025, Garcia emailed Smith the defect report. defect-email.eml

The email does not show when Smith received or read it. defect-email.eml

Versions: v3 · held for review Both accounts. Written before the email arrived.
v4 · ready for Elena
Prepared by: Alex Chen

Who decided: Alex wrote version 4. Elena hasn't reviewed it yet.
What carried forward: The draft carries its sources into review.

Previous stepCompare the updated matter Back to the start Next stepSee the decision and the next step

8See the decision and the next stepApril 30, 2026

Elena approves v4 and gives Alex the next job.

She reads version 4 with the sources open beside it and approves that exact version. Then she assigns Request for production No. 1 to Alex. It now names the May 2 email and asks for Smith's copy, its delivery records and the meeting notes. It stays a draft until it's reviewed and served.

Illustration · fictional matter

Notice memorandum v4

Decision

Approved · Notice memorandum v4 · Elena Rivera · April 30, 2026

Next step

Request for production No. 1

To: The supplier
Asks: Smith's copy of the May 2 email, its delivery records, and the review-meeting notes
Owner: Alex Chen
State: With Alex for final review before service

Who decided: Elena approved the memo and set the next step.
What carried forward: The next step keeps the reason it exists.

Previous stepReview the prepared work Back to the start Next stepLater: a witness corrects his testimony

Later: a witness corrects his testimonyMay 12, 2026In development

Smith corrects his transcript.

On May 12, Smith's errata sheet arrives. BRON records it as version 2 of his transcript, next to version 1, and nothing in version 1 is rewritten. Paragraph 2 of memo v4 cites version 1, so it should come back to Alex with the reason.

Today, BRON flags approvals still waiting on version 1, along with client updates and research memos built on it. Flagging a finished draft like this memo is in development.

Illustration · fictional matter

Smith's transcript

May 12, 2026: Smith's errata sheet, recorded as transcript version 2 beside version 1
Back to Alex: Memo v4, paragraph 2, which cites Smith 44:12–20 of version 1

Previous stepSee the decision and the next step Back to the start Next stepWhen it doesn't go to plan

When it doesn't go to plan

Not found isn't proof.: If the notes aren't in the sources Garcia chose, BRON records them as not found there. They may exist somewhere else.
Evidence that doesn't settle it.: The May 2 email closed a gap. Notice stayed disputed.
A change after review.: Editing a draft that was approved in review makes a new version, and that version needs its own approval.
A citation that can't be confirmed.: The document is held when someone tries to send, file, export or share it, until a licensed attorney releases it with a reason.
Help without control.: If Garcia shares a window for help, it's view only, covers that one window, and isn't recorded.

Previous stepLater: a witness corrects his testimony Back to the start

See it on a workflow your firm runs.

Request a demo

Demos use a fictional matter. Please don't send confidential case information through the form.