Complete audit-evidence migration before capacity exhaustion
Evidence systems are easiest to question before they become the only record of what happened.
Long retention, bounded cost, tenant isolation, and investigation depth do not always move together.
“If we need to explain who saw what later, ‘probably’ isn't going to cut it.”
Nuru Assefa · Deputy General Counsel
Relies on defensible records when reviewing sensitive matter access and legal-work handling across a corporate legal department.
What pulls against what
- retention capacity vs. evidence completeness
- forensic depth vs. data minimization
- cutover speed vs. irreversible schema choices
- central standardization vs. legal-work traceability
- machine reconciliation vs. human assurance
What is at stake
A capacity deadline makes the migration unavoidable, while incomplete event chains weaken future investigations. The decision must be defensible before the cutover makes its design costly to unwind
Why Harvey
At Harvey, this can matter because legal work often requires both careful access boundaries and credible evidence of how material was handled.
Written for
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.