Capture current queue age, first-touch timing, deficiency return rate, service/proof exceptions, and scheduled-not-ready matters.
Pilot evaluation
A public-safe way to prove operational impact.
This page frames how a court or stakeholder group could evaluate ProSe without relying on hype: baseline the queues, run a controlled pilot, compare the same operational metrics, and publish only aggregate performance results.
Fictional training data only · Aggregate metrics only · No case-level details.
Evaluation frame
Measure queue health before claiming backlog relief.
The credible proof path is operational: compare the same intake, correction, service, scheduling, packet-readiness, and decision-ready metrics before and after the workflow layer is introduced.
Use one limited workflow lane with fictional training records or approved pilot records and a defined review team.
Review median timing, aged work, correction loops, packet readiness, and supervisor attention items against the baseline.
Share aggregate operational movement only. Do not publish party details, sealed content, or staff-specific narratives.
30 / 60 / 90 day pilot
A practical review sequence.
Day 0–30Set the baseline.
Map the active filing lane, identify queue owners, record current age bands, and confirm which packet states are visible today.
Day 31–60Run a focused workflow pilot.
Move a bounded set of filings through upload, review, correction, scheduling, service/proof, and packet readiness.
Day 61–90Compare operational movement.
Evaluate first-touch time, correction turnaround, queue age, slotting lag, packet-ready rate, and recurring blockers.
Evaluation boundaries
Keep the claim narrow.
- Measure operational movement, not case outcomes.
- Compare aggregate queues, not individual litigants.
- Keep judicial decision-making outside the pilot claim.
- Document configuration gaps separately from product capability.
Pilot scorecard
Metrics that show whether the work is moving.
| Metric | Baseline question | Pilot signal | Public-safe reporting |
|---|---|---|---|
| Median intake first touch | How long until a received filing is first reviewed? | First review occurs inside the visible queue. | Median and age-band trend. |
| Deficiency turnaround | How long do correction loops stay open? | Returned, corrected, abandoned, and replaced items are separated. | Median turnaround and correction closure codes. |
| Service/proof exceptions | How many scheduled matters lack proof or service readiness? | Exceptions surface before the hearing date. | Aggregate exception count by age band. |
| Items awaiting slotting | Which matters are ready but not scheduled? | Scheduling need appears as queue work, not a hidden calendar task. | Pending slotting count and lag trend. |
| Packet-ready rate | Which matters are scheduled but not review-ready? | Packet status follows the same filing record downstream. | Percent packet-ready by hearing window. |
Baseline window
30d
Suggested minimum period for current-state measurement.
Pilot window
60d
Focused timebox for workflow review and staff feedback.
Review questions
5
Intake, correction, service/proof, slotting, and packet readiness.
Reporting posture
Aggregate
Public reporting avoids case-level and sealed matter detail.
Review kit
What a stakeholder should open next.
01One-page briefPrint the narrow public positioning and metrics summary.
02Guided walkthroughMove the fictional filing through the operational path.
03Metrics dashboardReview fictional aggregate indicators and corrected-field patterns.
04Leadership viewSee aging, overload, service/proof blockers, and action items.