Some knowledge must remain discoverable while becoming unusable in ordinary work flows.
Legal preservation and broad productivity can demand different boundaries over the same content.
Who you’d be doing this for
“I need custodians to find preserved material, but I can’t have it quietly feeding everyday workflows.”
Paraskevi Martins · Deputy General Counsel for eDiscovery
Owns defensible legal-hold processes for a regulated enterprise preparing to migrate its internal knowledge systems.
What is at stake
Held content can be classified in most samples, but nothing proves that every retrieval surface enforces the split. You have to ship enforcement, define the proof, and get sign-off before the irreversible migration.
Why it isn’t already fixed
Every obvious fix costs something else. That’s the part you’d have to decide.
- legal preservation vs. ordinary workflow exclusion
- migration speed vs. release proof
- automated findings vs. human-verifiable evidence
- uniform policy vs. inconsistent source metadata
- custodian access vs. least privilege
Why Glean
At Glean, this often matters when secure knowledge access must carry enterprise policy into search and downstream actions.
Written with these in mind
Not your kind of problem? 6 more at Glean, or browse every organization.
This is the setup. The work is inside.
Running it puts you in the room: the full situation and its constraints, stakeholders who push back in their own words, and the decisions that are yours to make. What you produce becomes a Day One Plan — work you can show someone instead of describing.