Which field is not needed when mapping categorized documents to example documents in Relativity Project Management

Outline for the article

• Set the scene: why a clean view matters when mapping categorized documents to their example documents in Relativity.

• Meet the essential fields: Document - [Name of Categorization Set], Category, Category Example.

• The verdict: why Document Size isn’t necessary for this view.

• Practical tips: how to design a lean, helpful view and keep the focus on categorization.

• A relatable analogy and quick recap.

Why a tidy view matters in Relativity

Let me explain something simple. When you’re tracking categorized documents against their example documents, you’re not just keeping a list. You’re building a map. A map that helps you understand which documents sit in which categories, and which reference documents illustrate those categories. If the view is cluttered, you’ll spend more time skimming fields and less time making confident decisions. That’s a drag, and it slows everyone down. So the goal is clarity, speed, and accuracy—without overloading the screen with fields that don’t actually help with the core task.

The essential trio that actually matters

What shows up in your view isn’t random. It’s chosen because it directly supports verifying the categorization process. Think of three pillars:

• Document - [Name of Categorization Set]

This field is the anchor. It tells you which specific categorization set you're looking at, and it links the document to the exact framework you’re applying. Without this, you might lose track of which category system is in play. It’s the label on the door that tells you which hallway you’ve wandered into.

• Category

Here you see the classification itself. This is the heartbeat of the mapping. The category tells you what idea or theme the document is associated with. It’s the practical, checkable piece of metadata that lets you confirm the document belongs where it’s supposed to belong.

• Category Example

This field ties the category back to a concrete reference document that illustrates how that category is used. It’s the “show me” part of the map—the actual example that demonstrates the rule in action. This reference point helps validate decisions and makes it easier to train others on how the system should be applied.

Why Document Size isn’t necessary for this view

Now, the big question: is Document Size something you should include? In this context, the answer is no. Size doesn’t illuminate the relationships you’re trying to validate between categorized documents and their exemplar documents. It’s a numeric trait of a document, but it doesn’t speak to the categorization scheme, the category itself, or how an example demonstrates that category. Including size can add clutter and cognitive load without adding new insights about the mapping. In practice, you want a view that answers: “Which category does this document belong to, and what’s the demonstrated example?” Size doesn’t help with that question.

If you’ve ever tried to navigate a spreadsheet full of numbers while you’re trying to confirm a policy mapping, you know the feeling. The brain starts to filter out the relevant signals and focus on the extraneous ones. That’s a red flag that you’ve sprinkled in fields that don’t contribute to the core objective. In this case, keeping the view lean helps the team see the pattern—how closely the actual documents align with the intended categorization and the associated example. It’s about signal over noise.

A practical mindset for building the view

Let’s make this concrete. You’re designing a view for tracking categorized documents to their example documents. Here’s a simple approach you can apply without overthinking it.

• Start with the three essential fields (as above). Make them the default visible columns, with clear, friendly labels.

• Add a quick-reference field, such as a unique ID for the categorization set, if your workflow depends on cross-referencing. But keep it compact—no sprawling identifiers that require scrolling.

• Include a visual cue or small note that shows the purpose of the Category Example. A hover tip or a tiny description can be enough to remind users what the example demonstrates without turning the view into a novella.

• Keep search and sort capabilities focused on these fields. It’s sometimes tempting to add more filters, but resist the urge unless there’s a real need. Each added filter is a potential cognitive hurdle.

A relatable analogy to keep this grounded

Imagine your view is a librarian’s desk. The categorization set is the shelf label, the category is the genre on the spine, and the category example is the actual book you pull to show someone what that genre looks like in practice. The book’s size doesn’t tell you much about the genre, does it? A towering tome might be exciting, but it doesn’t help you decide whether a document should sit in “Contractual Obligations”—that genre is determined by content and the example that demonstrates it. So you keep the shelf labeled, the spine clearly marked, and the example book in clear view. The size of any book on the desk? Irrelevant to the decision at hand.

A simple, human-led workflow you can adopt

• Identify the target view: you want to confirm the mapping between documents and their exemplars.

• Ensure the three core fields are visible by default.

• Use categorization sets and categories as your primary navigational anchors. If someone asks, “What category is this document in?” you should be able to answer in a sentence or two.

• When a new category is introduced, attach a fresh category example so the team has a concrete reference. This prevents drift and ensures everybody speaks the same language.

• Periodically sanity-check the view: does any new field creep in that doesn’t directly aid the mapping? If yes, remove it. Less is more here.

A few practical tips you’ll appreciate

• Keep field labels human-friendly. If “Document - [Name of Categorization Set]” feels clunky, try something like “Categorization Set” for the column header and use a tooltip to show the exact field name behind the scenes.

• Prefer consistent naming. When you align the Category field with standardized category names, you reduce misinterpretations and speed up peer reviews.

• Use the Category Example as a quick cross-check. It’s amazing how often a single illustrative document can reveal a mismatch between expectation and application.

• Document changes thoughtfully. If you tweak the view, note what you changed and why. It helps teammates understand the evolution of the mapping logic.

A touch of realism—what can go wrong and how to fix it

• You notice mismatches between Category and Category Example. That’s a red flag that the exemplar isn’t truly representative. Revisit the example, perhaps update the reference document, and re-train the team on what “belongs in this category” looks like.

• Someone adds a new field that seems useful but isn’t part of the core mapping. It might be tempting to keep it, but ask: does it help confirm the mapping or does it distract? If it’s not essential, move it to a separate, ancillary view.

• You discover a few documents without a clear Category Example linked. That’s an opportunity to tighten the process: gather the examples, document the decision rule, and ensure every mapped document has a reference.

Real-world signals that this approach works

Teams that prioritize clarity in their views tend to move faster in reviewing categorization decisions. They waste less time chasing down why a document is in a certain bucket and spend more time verifying the logic behind the bucket itself. The trio of fields acts like a dashboard for reasoning about how categories are applied and demonstrated. And because Document Size isn’t part of the equation, you avoid dragging in data points that don’t help with the central question.

Bottom line

When you’re tracking categorized documents to their example documents, the view should illuminate the mapping rather than obscure it. The three fields that matter most are:

• Document - [Name of Categorization Set]

• Category

• Category Example

Document Size, while potentially interesting in other contexts, doesn’t contribute to understanding the relationship between the categorization and its exemplar. Keeping the view lean makes it easier for anyone to see the logic, verify accuracy, and move on with confidence.

If you’re building or refining a view like this, start with those three fields and test how quickly a teammate can answer a few basic questions: Which categorization set is in play? What category does this document belong to? What exemplar demonstrates that category? If the answers come quickly and clearly, you’ve built something that serves the work—without the extraneous clutter slowing you down.

And if you ever find yourself picturing a librarian’s desk again, you’ll know you’re on the right track: labels are clear, the important books are easy to reach, and every piece has a precise, practical purpose. That’s the rhythm that keeps any document map honest, usable, and, frankly, a little more human.