Draft reminders for missing client documents
Get the source data and prepare the review

Documentation-checked proposed route; source collection and human approval required

WHAT WAS CHECKED
Official documentation checked; all routes are proposed and have not been run in a product account. No client data, account access, installs or account writes used. Native column names are distinguished from editorial kit contracts. Missing source evidence blocks completeness claims.

BEFORE YOU START
- Actual lawyer-approved client document checklist and actual receipt records for a bounded matter.
- Current approved secure-upload instructions and explicit requested due dates; no inferred deadline.
- Firm-approved Excel; optional Copilot entitlement and tenant approval for the exact minimized data. Native Excel analysis can be done manually if Copilot is absent.
- Keep raw exports and identifying source pointers in a separate restricted location. The AI workbook contains only approved alias-based tables and visible policy/scope text, never raw client records on another tab.

DATA ACQUISITION LIMITS
- A document filename is not evidence that the requested item was supplied or sufficient. Receipt_status is a staff judgment after opening the actual receipt.
- No universal client-checklist export or AI query is verified. This route explicitly reads maintained requests and receipts.

DECLARED INPUT CONTRACT
requested-items.csv: request_item_id, matter_alias, approved_plain_description, supplied_due_date, secure_upload_instruction
received-items.csv: receipt_id, request_item_id_if_known, matter_alias, deidentified_filename, receipt_status

STEP 1: Inspect the real requests and receipts
Tool: Clio Manage and local document viewer
Open: Matters > selected matter > Tasks / Communications / Documents
Access needed: See prerequisites; actual subscription, tenant configuration and permissions are untested.

Read the actual approved checklist or request in Tasks/Communications. In Documents, inspect the actual received item and receipt history under firm procedures. If the source records are outside Clio, open those actual records locally; this route does not claim an export from that unidentified system.

Expected output: An explicit requested-item list and a separately verified receipt log.
Use it next: Keep source references and identities restricted; prepare aliases and shareable descriptions.
Check: A portal upload, message acknowledgment or similar filename does not itself prove fulfillment.
Documentation limit: Official sources support named product features. Workflow-specific prompts, alias fields, mappings and reviewer rules are editorial adaptations, not native export promises.
Source documentation:
https://help.clio.com/hc/en-us/articles/9285920226075-Get-Started-With-Matters

STEP 2: Map the observed records to the starter input
Tool: Excel and authorized staff
Open: Separate analysis workbook > Home > Format as Table
Access needed: See prerequisites; actual subscription, tenant configuration and permissions are untested.

Create requested-items.csv with a stable request_item_id,matter_alias,approved_plain_description,supplied_due_date and secure_upload_instruction copied from the approved request. Create received-items.csv with receipt_id, an explicitly matched request_item_id_if_known,matter_alias,deidentified_filename and staff-verified receipt_status. Keep ambiguous matches unresolved. Put the approved reminder policy/cutoff in Scope. Create named tables for RequestedItems and ReceivedItems. Put the policy and review scope in visible worksheets or paste them into the next prompt.

Expected output: RequestedItems and ReceivedItems, with actual manually reviewed source evidence.
Use it next: Check the mapping against each original source before using AI.
Check: Aliases and missing policy fields are staff-created; do not relabel a native export as the kit schema. Unknown stays blank/unknown, not false or zero.
Documentation limit: Official sources support named product features. Workflow-specific prompts, alias fields, mappings and reviewer rules are editorial adaptations, not native export promises.
Source documentation:
https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/excel/tutorial-import-data-into-excel-and-create-a-data-model

STEP 3: Review the bounded evidence with Copilot
Tool: Excel Copilot, optional
Open: Approved analysis workbook > Copilot icon at lower right > Chat only
Access needed: See prerequisites; actual subscription, tenant configuration and permissions are untested.

Use Chat only and submit the prompt. Without Copilot: compare explicit item IDs and draft from approved descriptions after checking receipts.

PASTE THIS PROMPT
Compare RequestedItems and ReceivedItems by explicit request_item_id only, within Scope. List missing, partial, unclear and unmatched receipts with cited row IDs. Draft a brief client reminder using only approved_plain_description, supplied_due_date and secure_upload_instruction. Include only staff-confirmed outstanding items. Use a placeholder when the due date or upload instruction is absent. Do not infer legal requirements, sufficiency, deadlines, identity or attachment contents, and do not send.

Expected output: Missing-item review list and a lawyer-reviewable reminder draft.
Use it next: Copy the draft exception list to the reviewer; retain row references.
Check: Check every flagged row and the scope. A fluent answer is not evidence of completeness; no automatic workbook or source-system edits.
Documentation limit: Official sources support named product features. Workflow-specific prompts, alias fields, mappings and reviewer rules are editorial adaptations, not native export promises.
Source documentation:
https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/excel/copilot/get-started-with-copilot-in-excel
https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/excel/copilot/frequently-asked-questions-about-copilot-in-excel

STEP 4: Approve the review result
Tool: Responsible staff reviewer
Open: Reviewed local worksheet
Access needed: See prerequisites; actual subscription, tenant configuration and permissions are untested.

Staff reopen the actual receipts, clear ambiguous matches and check the upload destination. The lawyer approves the exact outstanding items and wording before any client communication.

Expected output: Approved reminder draft or a hold for missing facts.
Use it next: Any external message, source change, payment or deletion requires its own authorized process.
Check: Do not transmit a reminder based solely on filename comparison; no attachment or client identity goes to AI without specific firm approval.
Documentation limit: Editorial human-review gate; linked Excel documentation supports the worksheet used, not legal or accounting conclusions.
Source documentation:
https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/excel/tutorial-import-data-into-excel-and-create-a-data-model

ACCOUNT AND SOURCE CHECKS STILL NEEDED
- Actual account access, plan and source-data completeness have not been tested.

USING THE FILES IN THIS KIT
Use the exact files or source text named in the steps above. Native exports keep their own headers. The kit tables are editorial review worksheets; they are not a claim that a product exports those fields. Some routes use reviewed text directly or require additional original files. Never rename an unreviewed raw export to make it appear mapped. Keep expected-result files separate from inputs.

The source account, actual data, prompts and end-to-end workflow were not tested. Any final communication, filing, permission change, payment or publication needs its own authorized human action. This guide performs none.
