The product-event pipeline needs faster evidence without letting an automated flag decide what data is trusted.
Product planning needs timely behavioral data, while Data Engineers need a human decision before suspect records alter downstream models.
Who you’d be doing this for
“I was asked why usage dipped, then the dashboard changed after the meeting.”
Silvia Christodoulou · Legal Operations Manager
Uses product outcomes and adoption evidence to decide whether citation-grounded drafting workflows are delivering value to the legal department.
What is at stake
A lawyer activity dashboard changed after Product used it in a planning review. You must weigh faster incident evidence against the engineer’s authority to hold data.
Why it isn’t already fixed
Every obvious fix costs something else. That’s the part you’d have to decide.
- faster incident context vs engineer hold authority
- product planning speed vs trustworthy event data
- AI-drafted evidence vs deterministic controls
- pipeline continuity vs downstream accuracy
Why Harvey
Citation-grounded drafting and research improves only when product decisions reflect how lawyers actually use the workflow.
Written with these in mind
Not your kind of problem? 43 more at Harvey, 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.