Confirm the mapping
A suggestion must be reviewed before a source row becomes a normalized event.
Call Evidence Review · private pilot
A clearer path through a difficult call record.
Bring the call and text records your team already has. Review one chronology, inspect every source behind a lead, and decide what belongs in the final workpaper.
Built for investigation teams. The reviewer makes the legal judgment.
The work behind the case
The hard part is connecting the records without overstating them.
Call logs arrive from different systems. Time zones conflict. The same presented calling number appears across several rows, while no single record explains who placed a call. Current number intelligence can help you investigate, but it cannot tell you who controlled a number when an earlier call happened.
Call Evidence Review starts with a bounded CSV matter. It keeps the original file, the normalized event, and your team’s review decision connected. A repeated number stays a lead until someone examines its source rows.
From files to a reviewed workpaper
A review process your team can explain.
- 1
Bring your records
Start with CSV exports from the systems you already use. Confirm the column mapping and source time zone after seeing accepted and excluded row counts. The original file is kept with the matter.
- 2
Follow the number clues
Review the chronology and see where the same presented calling number appears more than once. Open the exact source rows behind each lead. Optional current-number lookups are scoped and quoted separately during the pilot.
- 3
Review every lead
Open the rows behind a suggested connection, add a note, reject it, or carry it forward. Your reviewer can record which questions need outside evidence before drawing a conclusion.
- 4
Approve and export
A named reviewer approves a versioned workpaper with selected source rows, an import manifest, review decisions, and their statement. Take the PDF and machine-readable data back to the firm’s case workflow.
A practical example
“These calls seem related.” Show the reason.
Suppose the same presented calling number appears in three supplied call-log rows. The matter can show each row and normalized timestamp together. Your reviewer can check the original CSV and decide whether the pattern is useful.
The shared number is an observed match. It is not proof of who placed a past call. That distinction remains visible in the lead and the workpaper.
Illustrative review lead
Repeated presented number
calls_oct.csv · row 142Oct 12, 10:42 AM
calls_oct.csv · row 188Oct 12, 10:47 AM
calls_nov.csv · row 51Oct 13, 2:16 PM
Optional AI assistance · pilot evaluation
Help the reviewer find the next question.
We are evaluating AI assistance for column-mapping suggestions and source-linked questions. It will be offered only after the processor, privacy terms, and cost allowance are approved for the matter. The current review workflow remains available without AI.
Keep control of the matter
AI requires a separate matter choice and access permission. We will disclose the processor and data handling before any customer evidence is sent.
Know when a source cannot answer
A future assistant must cite the rows behind a factual answer and say when the available record does not support one.
AI availability and any usage allowance are defined during the private pilot. A reviewer remains responsible for the workpaper.
Works with your existing tools
Use the workspace. Connect your tools when you need to.
Start in the VRI dashboard without moving your entire case system. Teams that need a programmatic workflow can use a matter-scoped API and SDKs. An MCP connection can let an authorized AI client read the matters and source-linked results that the customer expressly grants.
Investigation access is separate from an ordinary VRI lookup key. A firm chooses which matter an integration can see, what it can read, and when that access ends. Raw evidence and paid actions require their own permission.
Firm workspace
Choose a matter and permissionsVRI dashboard · REST API · SDK · MCP
Source links, access history, revocationWho it is for
For teams who need to explain how they reached a lead.
Plaintiff-side investigation
Bring client-supplied call, text, and voicemail exports together before deciding which questions need more evidence or discovery.
See the intake workflowDefense and response
Compare a reported calling number with supplied traffic records and current number intelligence while keeping uncertainty and source dates visible.
Specialist review teams
Repeat a documented workflow across large record sets, with reviewer decisions and exports that can move into the systems already used by the team.
Private pilot scope
A defined matter, a clear quote.
We scope the source files, event rows, mapping help, reviewer assistance, workpaper and retention for one bounded matter. If a file set is larger or more complex, we quote that work before accepting it.
Number lookups are additional. Your team selects the fields, sees the applicable rate and maximum, and confirms the work before a billable lookup. Optional AI capacity is scoped separately during pilot evaluation.
What the result can and cannot say
A present-day LRN, CNAM, carrier, DNO, or reputation result can be a useful clue. It does not establish who initiated an earlier call, who owned a number then, whether consent existed, or whether the TCPA was violated. Caller ID can be spoofed, and porting does not prove reassignment.
Call Evidence Review preserves those limits in the workflow. It is an investigation aid and a record organization service. It is not a legal opinion, a promise that evidence is admissible, or a substitute for counsel’s review.
Common questions
Before you bring a matter in
Do we have to move our case management system?
No. The matter is a place to review call and text records; the reviewed workpaper and data exports can return to your existing workflow.
Is AI required?
No. The review workflow does not depend on AI. Optional assistance remains under private pilot evaluation.
Who can see a matter?
Named people and connected clients with explicit matter grants. An ordinary lookup API key does not open confidential investigation records.
How long are records retained?
The proposed pilot retains originals, normalized events, and the approved report for 12 months after delivery, with disclosed extension or earlier deletion options, subject to any applicable hold.
Bring us the kind of record your team actually works with.
We can scope a private pilot around your file formats, number of rows, review questions, access needs, and cost before you upload confidential material.