Review Guide
Everything you need to rate documents accurately and consistently.
Rating Decision Tree
Can you read the text?
Is there any actual content?
Is it legal/financial/technical content you don't understand?
Does it contain direct evidence — named victims, financial proof, or evidence of wrongdoing?
Does it mention names, dates, locations, or patterns that support an investigation?
Otherwise
Rating Reference
Contains names, dates, financial records, evidence of wrongdoing, or victim statements that advance understanding of the case.
Examples
- •Flight logs listing passengers and destinations
- •Bank wire transfers or financial statements
- •Victim depositions or sworn testimony
- •Emails discussing meetings, travel, or payments
- •Documents naming co-conspirators or associates
Important context that supports an existing investigation but is not direct evidence. Contains names in passing, scheduling patterns, property references, or relationship evidence.
Examples
- •Documents mentioning names without direct evidence
- •Scheduling or travel patterns that suggest connections
- •Property references or financial amounts without full context
- •Correspondence that reveals relationships between parties
- •Supporting context for already-identified evidence
Readable content that provides context but does not contain direct evidence. Cover pages, administrative correspondence, routine legal filings.
Examples
- •Court docket entries and scheduling orders
- •Attorney appearance notices
- •Filing cover sheets with case numbers
- •Routine correspondence between lawyers
- •Administrative memos without substantive content
Truly empty, duplicate, or contentless pages. Blank sheets, separator pages, duplicate scans, pages with only page numbers or Bates stamps.
Examples
- •Completely blank pages
- •Pages with only a Bates stamp number
- •Duplicate scans of the same page
- •Separator or divider sheets
- •Test prints or scanner artifacts
The document exists but the text cannot be read. Extremely poor scan quality, corrupted files, or images too dark/blurry to make out any words.
Examples
- •Scans that are too dark to read any text
- •Heavily distorted or skewed pages
- •Corrupted PDF files that fail to render
- •Photos taken at extreme angles
- •Faded documents where ink is no longer visible
You can read the text but cannot assess its significance. Legal jargon, financial instruments, foreign language documents, or technical material beyond your expertise.
Examples
- •Complex financial derivatives documentation
- •Foreign language documents you cannot translate
- •Technical forensic reports
- •Legal motions with dense procedural language
- •Medical or psychiatric records with clinical terminology
Tagging Reference
Financial Records
Wire transfers, bank statements, invoices
Legal Documents
Court filings, motions, agreements
Correspondence
Letters, emails, faxes
Flight Related
Flight logs, manifests, travel records
Victim Testimony
Depositions and statements from victims
Heavily Redacted
Significant portions blacked out
Media/Photos
Photographs, news clippings, media files
Property/Real Estate
Deeds, leases, property records
Victim Named
Specific victim identified in document
Co-Conspirator
Alleged co-conspirator named
Possible Victim
Person who may be a victim
Uncertain/Ambiguous
Document meaning unclear
Key Evidence
Critical evidence for the case
Person Spotting Tips
- Use the person search to find existing people in the database. The search checks both names and known aliases, so try variations if your first attempt doesn't match.
- Can't find someone? Use the “Suggest New Person” button (green box) to propose new names. These suggestions are reviewed before being added to the database.
- Only tag people who are MENTIONED in the document, not people referenced only in metadata, headers, or Bates stamps. The person should appear in the actual body text.
- Use full names when suggesting new people. “G. Maxwell” is better than “Maxwell,” and “Ghislaine Maxwell” is best.
Keyboard Shortcuts
| Key | Action | Category |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Significant | Rating |
| 2 | Relevant | Rating |
| 3 | Routine | Rating |
| 4 | Junk | Rating |
| 5 | Unreadable | Rating |
| 6 | Needs Expert | Rating |
| F | Financial Records | Tag |
| L | Legal Documents | Tag |
| C | Correspondence | Tag |
| R | Flight Related | Tag |
| V | Victim Testimony | Tag |
| D | Heavily Redacted | Tag |
| M | Media/Photos | Tag |
| P | Property/Real Estate | Tag |
| I | Victim Named | Tag |
| O | Co-Conspirator | Tag |
| W | Possible Victim | Tag |
| U | Uncertain/Ambiguous | Tag |
| K | Key Evidence | Tag |
| Enter | Submit review | Action |
| S | Skip document | Action |
| ? | Show shortcuts help | Action |
Frequently Asked Questions
What if I'm not sure between Routine and Junk?
If it has ANY text content -- even mundane administrative text -- use Routine. Junk is for truly empty, duplicate, or contentless pages. A filing cover sheet with a case number is Routine. A blank page with only a Bates stamp is Junk.
Can I change my rating after submitting?
Not yet, but consensus is based on multiple reviewers so one mistake won't affect the outcome. If you realize you made an error, the weighted consensus system means your single rating will be balanced by other reviewers.
What counts as "key evidence"?
Documents that directly implicate someone in criminal activity, contain financial proof of wrongdoing, or include victim statements. Use this tag sparingly -- it should be reserved for genuinely important documents, not just anything that mentions a well-known person.
How many reviews does a document need?
3 reviewers for consensus (70% weighted agreement). If 5 or more reviewers submit conflicting ratings with no clear majority, the document is escalated to expert review. Your accuracy score is weighted by how often your ratings match the final consensus.
Do I need to tag every document?
No. Tags are optional and additive -- only apply them when they clearly fit. It's better to skip a tag than to apply one incorrectly. Ratings are required, but you can submit a review with zero tags.
Ready to start reviewing?
Every review helps surface the most important documents from the 2.1 million files in the archive. Jump in and start rating.
Start Reviewing