When should the Reviewed Field be made required in a coding panel?

Ever wonder why some fields in a coding panel are marked as required, no exceptions? In the Relativity world, the simple answer is this: the Reviewed field should be made required always. Not just sometimes, not just for certain documents—always. Here’s why that stance isn't a lofty ideal but a practical safeguard for quality, consistency, and accountability.

A quick picture of the coding panel and the Reviewed field

Think of a coding panel as a gatekeeper. It’s where reviewers—whether a subject-matter expert, a QA person, or a seasoned project lead—check each document before it moves on. The Reviewed field is the signal that a human has done their due diligence and that the document has passed a basic quality check. When you make that field mandatory for every item, you’re installing a uniform standard across the board. It isn’t about slowing things down; it’s about ensuring every piece of work gets a proper look, every single time.

Why making it universal beats selective review

Some folks assume you only need a review for high-priority docs or at certain milestones. That sounds efficient in the moment, right? But here’s the snag: it creates a loophole. If a document slips through without a review because it’s deemed “low priority,” you might miss a critical inconsistency, a missing citation, or a misapplied coding rule. The risk isn’t just a single error—it’s the ripple effect. One unreviewed document can seed confusion, rework, and a string of tweaks that slow the whole project down later.

Consistency matters, especially in large teams

Projects in Relativity often involve multiple teams, from legal hold to data governance to project management. When every document carries the same demand for review, you foster a shared language and a transparent trail. The Reviewed field becomes a breadcrumb trail: who reviewed what, when, and under what criteria. That traceability is gold for audits, for cross-team collaboration, and for keeping everyone aligned without shouting across the room about “who did what last time.”

Quality is not optional, it’s a discipline

Relativity panels aren’t just about labeling; they’re about ensuring accuracy, completeness, and proper context. If the Reviewed field is optional, you’re implicitly telling the team that some documents can skip the truth check. That’s a slippery slope. A mandatory field sends a clear message: quality can’t be compromised at any stage. It’s a discipline, not a preference. And yes, discipline can feel tedious at times, but it’s the glue that keeps projects from slipping into chaos.

Practical ways to implement this in real life

So, how do you make the universal requirement work without turning the process into a bottleneck? Here are practical steps that tend to stick:

• Make the field truly required in the coding panel: configure the system so users cannot save or move a document forward without entering a reviewer and marking it as Reviewed. It’s a hard stop, not a soft reminder.

• Align ownership: assign a designated reviewer for each document type or workflow stage. When people know who is responsible, the review happens more reliably.

• Build a lightweight checklist: a few crisp questions—Was the data complete? Is the coding consistent with the taxonomy? Are the notes clear and actionable? A short checklist speeds up decision-making and reduces back-and-forth.

• Tie reviews to dashboards and metrics: track the percentage of items reviewed on first pass, the average time to review, and the rate of rejected items. These visuals help teams see where gaps exist and celebrate improvements.

• Integrate training with the field: new team members should see the Reviewed requirement as a default from day one. Short onboarding nudges—examples of good reviews and common pitfalls—go a long way.

• Keep exceptions visible, not hidden: if there ever is a legitimate reason to bypass a review, document the rationale in a companion field or a justification log. But keep such occurrences rare and monitored.

• Use defaults that help, not hinder: provide pre-populated reviewer suggestions based on document type or project role. That reduces friction and keeps the process moving.

A quick analogy to keep the point clear

Think of the Reviewed field like a quality stamp on a product in a factory. If every widget must pass a quick check before it leaves the line, you catch misprints, loose parts, or missing labels before the box closes. If some widgets skip that check, a few slip through—then a customer notices, and returns pile up. The same logic applies to documents: a universal check is a safeguard against leaks in information, misinterpretations, and downstream rewrites.

Addressing common objections with a calm, practical tilt

• “It slows us down.” Yes, there’s a moment of pause, but it’s a controlled pause with a clear purpose. In the long run, you save time by reducing rework, clarifications, and the politicking that comes with unclear ownership.

• “What about tiny or routine items?” Even the petites deserve clarity. A quick review prevents small issues from becoming big ones.

• “Our team is used to flexible workflows.” Flexibility is valuable, but consistency is the backbone that makes flexible workflows reliable. You can keep adaptability in the process while locking in the essential step: a completed review.

Real-world impact: trust, clarity, and a cleaner trail

When the Reviewed field is consistently filled, you’ll notice three tangible benefits:

• Trust: teammates trust that every document has been looked at and signed off in a uniform way. The absence of surprise is a powerful morale booster.

• Clarity: the reviewer’s notes become a reliable source of truth. Later readers don’t have to guess what was checked or why a decision was made.

• Traceability: audits, regulatory checks, and senior leadership can see the lifecycle of each document at a glance. That kind visibility often speeds up approvals and reduces friction.

A few subtle touches to keep the flow human

• Use a friendly tone in reviewer notes. Short, crisp language beats long prose. A note like, “Clarified the citation; no changes to conclusions,” is plenty.

• Vary sentence length to keep momentum. A punchy sentence here, a reflective one there, helps maintain a natural rhythm.

• Sprinkle a relatable analogy now and then. It’s not fluff—it helps people connect abstract rules to everyday work.

• Don’t force the pace. If a team hits a temporary snag, acknowledge it, adjust expectations, and move forward with renewed clarity.

Wrapping it up

Here’s the core takeaway: make the Reviewed field required in the coding panel for every document, every time. It’s not a punitive rule; it’s a practical guardrail that uplifts accuracy, accountability, and consistency across the project. When all documents get the same level of scrutiny, you reduce risk, streamline collaboration, and build a stronger foundation for success.

If you’re revisiting your own Relativity setup, this is a good moment to take a quick pulse check. Do you see every item moving through with a reviewer marked and a clear review note? If not, a small adjustment now can yield big returns later—less rework, clearer ownership, and a smoother path to reliable outcomes.

So, next time you configure a panel, remember the principle: universal, unambiguous review. It’s simple, it’s effective, and it makes the entire process feel a little less chaotic—and a lot more trustworthy. And that, frankly, is priceless when you’re steering complex projects across cross-functional teams.