ARCHIVED CONTENT
You are viewing ARCHIVED CONTENT released online between 1 April 2010 and 24 August 2018 or content that has been selectively archived and is no longer active. Content in this archive is NOT UPDATED, and links may not function.By Gary Wiener
The problem with technology-assisted review is that the best practices to bring about the most accurate, defensible review are, quite frankly, too onerous for most attorneys to accept.
In “TAR 1.0″, the initial iteration of computer-aided document analysis, as many documents as possible from the total corpus had to be loaded up into the TAR system and, from this nebulous blob of relevant data, non-relevant data, fantasy football updates and cat memes, a statistically-valid sample was drawn at random. It then fell to a senior attorney on the litigation team to manually review and code this “seed set”, after which the computer would identify similarities among documents with similar tags and try to extrapolate those similarities to the entire document corpus.
Read the complete article at: On TAR 1.0, TAR 2.0, TAR 1.5 and … TAR 3.0?