Why coding every document as positive or negative matters in the Project Validation queue

Getting the story right: every document deserves a verdict

In the bustle of project validation, documents aren’t just files on a shelf. They’re signals, clues, and sometimes stubborn reminders of what we know and what we don’t. When reviewers skip coding a document, it’s like moving through a maze with a few doors left ajar—you can feel the draft, but you don’t know what’s behind it. The simple rule—code every document as positive or negative—keeps the path clear and the map honest. No skipping, no gray areas. Just a clear verdict that feeds into the project’s truth.

What positive and negative really mean

Let’s break down the two verdicts in plain terms. Positive doesn’t mean “everything is perfect.” It means the document supports the project’s objectives, criteria, or known requirements. It signals alignment, a piece of evidence that reinforces a decision, schedule, risk posture, or control. Negative, on the other hand, flags evidence that contradicts a criterion, raises a concern, or highlights a potential issue that could derail or delay an objective if left unaddressed.

The beauty (and sanity) of this approach is consistency. If every document earns a verdict, reviewers create a uniform story. It’s easier to compare apples to apples—every piece of evidence has a stance. That doesn’t mean we ignore nuance; it means we document it within the verdict and, if needed, in a comments field or an attached note. You can still describe why a document leans negative or positive, but the act of labeling is the spine that holds the analysis upright.

Why skipping isn’t an option

Here’s the thing: skipping the coding step invites gaps. You might miss:

• A critical trend: a series of almosts or near-misses that, taken together, shift a risk profile.

• An inconsistent thread: a set of documents that ought to corroborate a conclusion but don’t line up because one is left undecided.

• An audit blind spot: future reviewers bringing questions you can’t answer because you didn’t record a verdict.

• A governance hiccup: decisions built on shaky evidence, not a solid chain of reasoning.

In short, skipping leaves doubt where you want clarity. And in project work, doubt is expensive. It slows decisions, invites revisiting earlier conclusions, and can erode trust among team members who rely on the validation record to move forward.

A simple workflow you can trust

This isn’t about clever tricks; it’s about a clean, repeatable rhythm you can rely on. Here’s a straightforward workflow you can adopt in most document review environments, including Relativity’s review workflows.

• Define the two verdicts: Positive and Negative. Make it crystal that there’s no “neutral” option for a document’s status in the validation queue. Every item deserves a stance.

• Apply the verdict to every document. No exceptions. Even if a document seems irrelevant at first glance, assign a position and note why it doesn’t change the picture or why it does.

• Add a concise rationale. For each Positive or Negative label, capture a brief reason. This isn’t fluff—this is the map your future selves will use to understand why something tipped one way or another.

• Use a consistent coding field. In Relativity or similar platforms, set up a required field (for example, Decision or Verdict) with the two choices you’ve chosen. Make it mandatory before you can close or move on.

• Keep an eye on tied cases. If several documents point in different directions, the grouping helps. Don’t just shrug and move on—note the tension and what would resolve it.

• Train and align the team. A quick refresher on what counts as Positive versus Negative reduces drift. When people speak the same language, reviews go faster and results feel sturdier.

• Enforce a minimal review flow. It helps to require coding before a document exits a stage or enters a new review set. A built-in check reduces the chance of silent skip-overs.

Relativity in action: coding fields, checks, and dashboards

If you’re working with Relativity, you’ve got a powerful ally for this discipline. The platform makes it practical to ground every document in a simple, mandatory verdict:

• Use a dedicated coding field labeled clearly (like Verdict: Positive/Negative). Make it a required field so nothing slips through unchecked.

• Attach a short rationale. A separate notes field or a comment can capture why a document is Positive or Negative, which is priceless during audits or cross-team reviews.

• Create filters and dashboards. Visual dashboards that show the distribution of Positive and Negative verdicts help you spot anomalies quickly. If a large chunk of the queue tilts one way, you know where to focus first.

• Run periodic quality checks. An occasional sample of coded documents examined by a second reviewer catches drift and reinforces consistency.

The discipline isn’t about being rigid; it’s about being honest

Some teams fear that a strict labeling system will feel inflexible. The reality is different. It’s a steady compass in a sea of data. When you commit to labeling every document, you:

• Build a traceable path from evidence to decision.

• Reduce ambiguity about why a decision was made.

• Create a reliable baseline for future reviews or audits.

• Save time in the long run by cutting back rework caused by missing or ambiguous records.

A quick reality check

Imagine you’re a project reviewer, looking at a batch of documents tied to a milestone. One doc supports a key criterion, another documents a policy conflict, and a third appears borderline—maybe it’s simply not clear how it fits. If you skip labeling any of them, you might still feel confident in the obvious ones, but you’ll stumble when questions come up about the less clear items. If you label them all, you not only answer current questions but also set up a transparent trail for whoever comes after you. The work you put into this step compounds into a smoother handoff and clearer accountability.

Digressions that matter (and why they land back on the main point)

You’ve probably run into the moment when a stray document makes you pause. Maybe it’s a contract addendum, maybe it’s a risk memo that contradicts a prior assessment. It’s tempting to set these aside and push forward. Here’s the sobering truth: those stray items often become the most persuasive evidence in a post-hoc review. Coding them forces you to confront them head-on. That honesty is what keeps the project moving with fewer surprises later on.

Another angle: the human element. Review teams differ in style—some are thorough, some are brisk. A uniform labeling approach creates a shared language that transcends personal rhythms. It’s not about policing people; it’s about creating a predictable, reliable process that you can trust when momentum matters.

Quality checks that bite back

No process is perfect, but you can design checks that catch missteps without bogging you down. Try these practical ideas:

• Mandatory coding enforcement. If a document isn’t labeled, it cannot advance to the next stage. It’s a simple nudge that pays dividends.

• Random audits. Pick a small sample weekly to verify that verdicts align with the content and the stated rationale.

• Cross-review. Have a second pair of eyes re-check a subset of documents to confirm consistency.

• Clear criteria for edge cases. If a document straddles two criteria, agree on a rule for its verdict and document that rule.

Why this matters beyond the queue

The benefits aren’t limited to the moment you review. A robust coding habit feeds:

• Audit trails you can trust. When questions arise, you have a clean story about why each document was given its verdict.

• Clearer risk and issue tracking. Negative verdicts don’t disappear; they prompt action, escalation, or mitigation planning.

• Better decision-making. Decisions rest on a chain of evidence, not on impressions. The verdicts anchor the narrative and keep it credible.

• Consistency across teams. As teams rotate or new members join, the shared coding language reduces ramp-up time and miscommunication.

Final thoughts: consistency as a quiet superpower

You don’t need flashy tools or dramatic overhauls to make this work. You need a simple rule, applied consistently: every document gets a verdict. Positive or Negative. Each choice, with a short justification, builds a robust, navigable record that supports the project’s goals and withstands scrutiny.

If you’re building a workflow around the Project Validation queue, start with that two-value coding approach. Layer in mandatory fields, basic checks, and quick training for reviewers. Let Relativity’s features help you enforce the discipline, but keep the human voice in the margins—clear notes, thoughtful rationales, and sharp attention to how each document influences the bigger picture.

In the end, the point isn’t to label for labeling’s sake. It’s to create a living, honest story of the project’s evidence. When every document carries a verdict, your team moves with confidence, your decisions carry weight, and the project keeps its course—even when the terrain gets a little rough.

If you’re curious how this plays out in real workflows, start by mapping a small batch of documents and practicing the two verdicts with clear rationales. The calm you build there travels with you through the whole validation journey, turning what could feel like a maze into a well-lit path you can navigate together.