In one sentence
A colleague testing the platform called the suggested working steps too granular and the interface overloaded — and the answer to that is not primarily the new slider, but a rule about how a step is cut that applies at every level: preparation, draft and filing of the same document are a single step.
Two sentences, two different problems
The feedback contained two criticisms that are easily thrown together. “Too granular” is not a problem of the interface but a question of how a package of work is broken up. “Overloaded” is a question of simultaneity — and in part simply the same function under two names.
The slider is the smaller part of the answer
For the list of next steps there is now a slider with three levels, directly next to the button that generates the list:
- Overview — three to five steps.
- Standard — four to eight steps. The default; it corresponds to the previous behaviour.
- Detailed — up to twelve steps.
It controls quantity and granularity, no more — and is deliberately kept separate from the depth slider for the case summary.
The real change is a rule that always applies
More important than the level is how a step is cut. This rule now applies across all levels and in both writing modes — when a list is generated just as much as when it is subsequently corrected:
A pleading remains ONE step at every level — preparation, draft and filing are never separated.
Preparation, draft, enclosures, filing and making a note of the same document belong together; sub-actions belong in the description of the step, not in rows of their own, and purely organisational filler points are dropped. If the rule were tied to the level, “detailed” would once again be exactly the behaviour complained of — merely with the observation that you had after all set it that way yourself.
“And now?” — one sentence above the case file
Above the tabs of the case file there is now a line with exactly one sentence: what is coming next. It is deterministic, triggers no AI call and costs nothing — asking an AI on every page view would have been a sixth opinion alongside deadlines, the co-pilot and the workflows. Instead a fixed order decides:
- An overdue deadline.
- A deadline in fourteen days or fewer.
- The most urgent open item.
- The number of open items.
- Setting up the case file.
- Uploading documents.
- Nothing urgent.
Two buttons, one agent
In the case file cockpit, “prepare for the hearing” and the workflow card “prepare for the appointment” started the same agent — the difference was explained by a help text. A help text that explains why two buttons a few pixels apart do the same thing is not the solution but the finding. Twelve entry points became nine, with no duplicates among them. No mode of operation has been dropped: the options of the removed quick starts have moved into the remaining cards, and a test holds that in place permanently.
Grouping with three brakes
Longer step lists are grouped by category — but only where it helps. The grouping applies only from five items upwards, requires at least two genuine categories, and is omitted if more than every second item would get a group of its own. If one of the brakes engages, the flat list remains. A structure in which almost every row carries its own heading is more restless than none at all.
What this does not do
The slider does not change what the AI considers correct in substance — it changes how finely it writes it down; three steps are no statement that there is less to do. The line “And now?” prioritises exclusively what is recorded in this case file: it is a reading aid for the existing stock and replaces no monitoring of deadlines; what is not in the register it cannot name. And with nine entry points the interface is not suddenly lean — it is merely free of routes that arrive twice at the same destination.
→ The case file in the lawyer portal · Agents & workflows · Our approach · For lawyers
