Scenarios 07–12
7 — Record evidence gap
Stem: decision is documented weeks later with no creator/date/context.
Primary problem: weak evidentiary record quality/context.
Support: Records, Metadata, Data Quality.
Roles: creator/owner, Records Manager, governance/audit.
Best action: strengthen truthful/complete content, context Metadata, timely creation, permanency and clear structure.
Weaker: focus only on storage.
Changed fact: record is trustworthy but cannot be located → Availability/search.
Source: pp. 295–301.
8 — Old archive unreadable
Stem: records were kept for the correct legal period, but current systems cannot open them.
Primary problem: retention preserved bytes but not long-term accessibility.
Best action: archive/retention design must preserve readable formats, conversion/migration strategy and retrieval capability.
Support: Storage & Operations, continuity.
Weaker: count byte survival as successful retention.
Changed fact: retention expired, no hold/need, disposition authorized → destroy/transfer appropriately.
Source: retention/archive sections, approx. pp. 300–306.
9 — Social-media record
Stem: a regulated interaction occurs on a corporate social-media account.
Primary problem: business evidence in a nontraditional channel.
Best action: capture with context Metadata into a governed process/repository; apply classification, retention, protection and audit.
Roles: business owner, Records Manager, social/content owner, legal/compliance.
Weaker: ignore it because it is social media.
Changed fact: informal post outside record criteria/hold → ordinary content under general policy.
Source: content-handling/records sections, approx. pp. 306–315.
10 — BYOD content sprawl
Stem: employees store formal records in personal cloud apps because device policy treats all content alike.
Primary problem: governed records escape approved controls.
Support: Information Governance, Data Security, Records.
Best action: content-handling/device/access rules that distinguish formal/sensitive/record content and route it to approved repositories.
Weaker: treat every file on every device identically.
Changed fact: content is already in official repository but wrong people can access it → security/rights authorization.
Source: policy/implementation, approx. pp. 306–323.
11 — E-discovery scope unknown
Stem: legal knows a case is coming but not which systems, custodians or dates contain relevant ESI.
Primary problem: scope/source uncertainty.
Best action: Identification / Early Data Assessment supported by an ESI/data map.
Roles: legal/e-discovery, Records, IT/system owners, custodians.
Weaker: broad collection before scoping.
Changed fact: scope is known and destruction risk exists → Preservation/Legal Hold becomes urgent.
Source: EDRM Identification/Preservation, approx. pp. 301–306.
12 — Too much ESI
Stem: collected set contains huge duplicates and irrelevant system files.
Primary problem: collected population needs preparation/reduction.
Best action: Processing—de-duplication, format preparation, filtering/search/reduction.
Roles: e-discovery processing team, legal reviewers.
Weaker: send raw set directly to Review.
Changed fact: deciding whether prepared items are responsive or privileged → Review.
Source: EDRM Processing/Review.