Editorial guide
How to Evaluate Medical Chronology Software Before a Law-Firm Pilot
A buyer’s evaluation framework covering source fidelity, OCR, abstention, review, security, deployment, exports, and evidence claims.
By Jake Bauman. Updated August 12, 2026. Under Seal product review; independent technical and legal review recommended. No named legal review is claimed unless identified here.
Short answer
Evaluate medical chronology software with a closed, representative document set and a written scorecard. Measure source-pin support, unsupported-claim rate, OCR coverage by document class, reviewer correction burden, matter isolation, recovery, and export controls. A polished demo or aggregate accuracy number is not enough.
Key takeaways
- Test your ugly documents, not only a clean vendor sample.
- Separate citation existence, source support, and legal correctness.
- Require an installation, recovery, support, and data-removal plan before matter data enters the system.
Editorial methods are identified as such. Numbered links beside a paragraph or section point to the authority or framework relevant to that claim; a source does not certify Under Seal or replace current jurisdiction-specific review.
Build a representative test pack
Basis: editorial method
Use authorized, closed, synthetic, or public material that resembles the intended pilot. Include native PDFs, clean scans, low-contrast faxes, rotations, tables, stamps, duplicates, blank pages, missing pages, and handwriting if handwriting is in scope. Record the expected text, coverage state, and source locator before running the software.
Score what matters
Basis: editorial method
Ask for the denominator and the document mix behind every metric. A model can have low average character error while failing on the one table that carries the damages number.
- Page coverage and silent-page-loss rate
- Accepted claims whose pinned page actually supports the wording
- Unsupported or materially corrected claims
- Correct abstention on absent facts
- Review minutes and corrections per accepted event
- Install, restart, backup, restore, upgrade, rollback, and removal behavior
Review the operating boundary
Basis: external sources listed below
Document who owns the hardware, who can access matter data, what diagnostics contain, whether any hosted fallback exists, where backups go, how keys are held, and what happens after cancellation. NIST’s AI and cybersecurity frameworks are useful organizing references, but they are not product certifications.
Sources for this section: [1] AI Risk Management Framework (opens in a new tab), [2] Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 (opens in a new tab), [3] Start with Security: A Guide for Business (opens in a new tab), [4] Formal Opinion 512: Generative Artificial Intelligence Tools (opens in a new tab)
Authorities and frameworks
Each source is classified below. It may govern a specific legal point, offer professional or government guidance, or provide a voluntary framework. The collection does not validate every editorial method in this guide and does not resolve a firm-specific question.
- [1]AI Risk Management Framework Opens in a new tab. — National Institute of Standards and Technology · Risk framework
- [2]Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 Opens in a new tab. — National Institute of Standards and Technology · Risk framework
- [3]Start with Security: A Guide for Business Opens in a new tab. — Federal Trade Commission · Government guidance
- [4]Formal Opinion 512: Generative Artificial Intelligence Tools Opens in a new tab. — American Bar Association · Ethics guidance
Connect the general guidance to the product record
Continue the review
Under Seal is pre-release software, not a law firm. Do not submit matter details or client documents through this website.
Request a no-client-data readiness review