Prepare a dormant-matter review list 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 - Authorized Clio Manage access to the bounded matter set; optional Manage AI matter summaries. - Approved review intervals, explicit next-review dates and pause/waiting instructions supplied by responsible staff. - 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 matter summary is not a complete activity export. Activity can occur outside Clio or be hidden by permissions. - No recent activity means only no observed activity in the reviewed scope; it does not prove neglect, abandonment or no substantive progress. DECLARED INPUT CONTRACT matters.csv: matter_alias, status, owner_alias, last_activity_date, next_action, approved_next_review_date, waiting_reason, pause_flag, source_row review-intervals.csv: status, approved_interval_days, approver_ref scope.txt STEP 1: Get a source-linked matter catch-up Tool: Clio Manage AI, optional Open: Diamond/gem icon > AI Launchpad > Ask a question Access needed: See prerequisites; actual subscription, tenant configuration and permissions are untested. Ask the prompt for one authorized matter at a time, then open cited source items. Without AI, inspect that matter’s Tasks, Communications, Notes, Activities and Calendar subtabs directly. PASTE THIS PROMPT Catch me up on matter [MATTER] for [REVIEW PERIOD]. Identify dated source records for recent activity and outstanding tasks, and any explicit recorded next action or waiting instruction. Link each statement to its source. Do not infer a deadline or invent an action. State when the answer lacks evidence. Expected output: Candidate latest activities and open tasks with source links, requiring staff verification. Use it next: Read the original source records and any explicit waiting/pause instructions locally. Check: Check the review period, permissions and off-system work. A summary cannot certify the last activity across all systems. 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/29658072890523-Clio-Duo-Ask-About-Matters-and-Contacts 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 matters.csv with matter_alias,status,owner_alias,last_activity_date,next_action,approved_next_review_date,waiting_reason,pause_flag and source_row. last_activity_date is the latest verified in-scope observation, not an inferred global fact. Record review-intervals.csv only from the approved status policy. Put scope.txt, cutoff/timezone and visibility exclusions in Scope. Create named tables for Matters and ReviewIntervals. Put the policy and review scope in visible worksheets or paste them into the next prompt. Expected output: Matters and ReviewIntervals, with unknowns preserved. 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 supplied review dates and approved intervals, keeping unknown and paused rows separate. PASTE THIS PROMPT Using Matters, ReviewIntervals and Scope, identify matters due for an administrative check-in under the supplied rule or approved_next_review_date. Return matter_alias, observed activity date, rule reference, recorded next action, waiting/pause state, issue and source_row. Keep paused/waiting matters separate. Missing activity data is unknown, not inactivity. Do not calculate court deadlines, invent next steps or accuse anyone of delay. Expected output: Administrative review queue with evidence and uncertainty. 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. Responsible owners confirm recent off-system activity, waiting instructions and the next administrative check-in. Approve the queue without changing legal dates or matter status. Expected output: Reviewed check-in list. Use it next: Any external message, source change, payment or deletion requires its own authorized process. Check: Review intervals are internal policy, not legal limitation periods or proof of case progress. 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.