Disabling duplication is the default for Coverage Review to keep data clear and reviews efficient.

Default to clarity: why disabling duplication helps Coverage Review

Let’s talk through a simple idea that makes a big difference in Coverage Review: keep duplicates out. In many workflows, you can choose to show or allow duplicates, but the smart default is to disable duplication. Why? Because when every item is unique, reviewers spend less time sifting through the same data, and more time assessing what actually matters. It’s efficiency with a calm, focused rhythm instead of a noisy jumble.

What exactly are we calling duplicates here? In a large-scale review, you’ll encounter the same or essentially identical documents, metadata, or entries popping up more than once. Maybe it’s due to imports, cross-references, or subtle variations in how records are stored. No matter the source, duplicates tend to blur the signal. They create cognitive load, forcing reviewers to ask, “Have I already seen this?” again and again. When that question becomes a daily refrain, progress slows, and eyes start glazing over. Disabling duplication helps keep the spotlight on genuinely unique items that drive decisions.

The default you want, in plain terms, is this: don’t show duplicates. Let the system filter out the repetitive content so you can focus on new or distinct entries. It’s a streamlined approach that keeps your review tidy, predictable, and easier to audit. And yes, there are times you might want to investigate a near-duplicate or cross-reference—we’ll circle back to how to handle those without reopening the floodgates to repetition.

Why this default matters for Coverage Review

• Clarity over noise. When duplicates disappear from the main view, the surface looks cleaner, and the important differences stand out. It’s a bit like decluttering a workspace—suddenly you can see the really relevant documents and fields clearly.

• Faster decision-making. Review speed isn’t just about clicking quickly; it’s about reducing redundant checks. If you’re staring at the same document in two places, you’re not adding real value by reviewing it twice. A duplication-filtered view nudges you toward fresh material and meaningful choices.

• Better resource allocation. Review teams aren’t infinite. By avoiding repetitive items, you allocate time and energy to unique entries, ensuring thoroughness where it truly matters. In practice, this translates to fewer minutes wasted on sameness and more on substantive analysis.

• Cleaner workflow and fewer errors. Duplicates can slip through gaps and cause miscounts, inconsistent tagging, or duplicate highlights. A clean, duplicate-free view reduces those slip-ups and helps keep the project’s data hygiene intact.

What this looks like in Relativity Coverage Review (the practical side)

In Relativity’s Coverage Review environment, the concept is straightforward: you set up the view so duplicates aren’t displayed. Here’s the spirit of how it plays out.

• Unique-first view. Each item shown represents a unique entry. If two records are essentially the same, Relativity’s backend filters one out so you’re not forced to chase the same thread twice.

• Focus on new information. With duplicates out of the way, you’re more likely to catch newly added considerations, dependencies, or gaps in coverage. The review becomes more of a discovery process rather than a repetitive pass.

• Audit-friendly by design. When duplicates are suppressed, the trail you leave behind for stakeholders is cleaner. It’s easier to trace what was considered, what was ruled out, and why.

Edge cases you’ll encounter—and how to handle them

No rule is perfect in the real world, and Coverage Review isn’t an exception. There are moments when you’ll want to peek at duplicates or near-duplicates to confirm nothing slips through the cracks.

• Near-duplicates and related items. If two records are not exact copies but are highly similar (say, two versions of a document with minor edits), you may want to compare them side by side. In practice, you can run a targeted search or a separate review pass to catch these near-miss cases without letting full duplicates flood your main view.

• Important repeated themes. Sometimes a concept recurs across multiple documents. Even with duplicates hidden, you still benefit from a structural check—tag or note where a recurring issue or theme shows up. That keeps you aware of patterns without being overwhelmed by repetition.

• Data quality checks. Occasionally, a genuine duplicate points to a metadata inconsistency or import hiccup. If you suspect something’s off, run a quick audit to verify whether two nearly identical items should be merged or kept separate for a legitimate reason.

Practical tips to keep your Coverage Review crisp and productive

• Build a clean baseline. Start with a duplicate-suppressed view as your default and run a quick pass to confirm nothing critical is hidden. If you discover a scenario where a duplicate is actually meaningful, document that rule so others understand the exception.

• Use targeted checks for duplicates. When you need to verify similarity, run a separate sweep or a lightweight comparison at the metadata level (titles, MT fields, dates, or author IDs). Do this as a quick follow-up rather than letting it disrupt the main review flow.

• Keep a lightweight tag system. If something is flagged as a potential near-duplicate for follow-up, tag it and create a short note. That keeps the main view clean while preserving the context you’d want if you decide to drill down later.

• Schedule periodic data hygiene reviews. Every so often, perform a spot check to catch any import quirks or systemic duplication issues. It’s a small investment that pays off in long-term accuracy.

• Align with your team’s workflow. Communicate the default: duplicates are disabled by design. If someone needs to re-enable them for a specific task, make sure there’s a clear rationale and a documented exception process. Consistency matters for getting reliable results across the board.

A quick analogy to keep it relatable

Think of Coverage Review like organizing a library shelf. If every book has a distinct spine, it’s easy to skim the shelf, pull what you need, and notice gaps where a category might be missing. If the same book appears twice in every section, you waste time, you double-check the same title, and you risk glossing over a real gap. Disabling duplication is like arranging the shelves so you’re always looking at the next new title rather than the same old one in duplicate. The result? A smoother journey from the first page to the last.

A few words on balance and tone

You’ll notice that the idea isn’t about closing doors to review depth. It’s about preserving clarity and momentum. When the view stays clean, you can be more deliberate in your judgments, and that steadiness translates into better outcomes for the project. It’s not counterintuitive to want fewer repeats; it’s a practical choice that makes space for the hard, important work of analysis and decision-making.

Putting it all together

The default stance—disable duplication in Coverage Review—serves a practical purpose. It protects focus, accelerates progress, and helps teams maintain tidy, auditable records. Duplicates tend to create noise and confusion; removing them from the main flow keeps the conversation crisp and the conclusions solid.

If you’re involved in a Relativity-driven workflow, you’ll likely encounter this setting sooner rather than later. Embrace it as a guardrail that upholds quality without slowing you down. And remember: when you need to dive into a touch of comparison or verify a near-duplicate scenario, you can pivot to a targeted, focused review path—without letting clutter creep back into the primary view.

Final thought: the art of a clean review is a balance between thoroughness and restraint. By defaulting to a duplicates-free view, you set the stage for clear insight and reliable outcomes. Give it a try in your next Coverage Review session—you might be surprised how much smoother the journey feels when the duplicates stay out of sight, leaving the real work to shine through.