Function coverage
Legal
The platform observes 40.0% of the 2,140 items a week in scope here, reconstructs 20.0%, and estimates that 856 happen where it cannot read them. This statement was produced by interview with the function and carries a band of plus or minus 26%.
The method behind this statement
Interview with the function · owned by General Counsel · Function head
Observed is the matter count. The split between inferred and unseen came from a structured interview with the legal operations lead, not from a count.
The unseen share was given by the function rather than computed. It is the weakest method here and is labeled as such wherever the figure appears.
Advice given verbally or by email that never becomes a matter record.
Who has signed for it
1 signature stands against something inside this scope. Each one names whether it came from an individual or from the office they hold.
I accept that roughly two fifths of what Legal does is not visible to this platform, and that the split between inferred and unseen came from an interview rather than a count.
Work filed here that the platform could not see
2 items have been filed by somebody who did the work off-platform.
Gaps raised against this function
1 gap in a chain that something must have filled.
Redlines are being exchanged by email before anything enters the contract system.
What this statement is, and what it is not
Coverage can only ever be estimated from the outside. Observed is a count the platform can produce from records it holds. Inferred is a count it reconstructs by rule or by cohort. Unseen is an estimate of work the platform knows exists and cannot read, and every statement carries the method that produced it and a stated uncertainty. Nothing here is rounded up.
A coverage statement is disputable by design. The way to disagree with one is to inspect the method and the basis for the unseen figure, both of which are on the statement, rather than to argue about the number.