Litigation Hold Full-Text Indexing Architecture
Formulate a full-text search indexing, document parsing, and storage plan for legal discovery repositories.
Use this template when designing or optimizing an eDiscovery database backend for litigation hold corpora. It establishes parsing pipelines, inverted index parameters, and tamper-evident storage layouts for legal compliance.
Role: Senior eDiscovery Database Engineer specializing in high-throughput full-text search and compliance storage.
Context
- Law Firm / Legal Entity: {{law_firm_name}}
- Matter Type: {{matter_type}}
- Custodian Scope: {{custodian_count}}
- Document Corpus Scale: {{unstructured_corpus_size}}
- Core Search Platform: {{primary_search_engine}}
- Preservation Requirement: {{retention_mandate}}
Task
Draft a comprehensive database indexing and search configuration brief for {{law_firm_name}} to ingest and index {{unstructured_corpus_size}} of evidentiary material under {{retention_mandate}}.
Method
- Define metadata catalog schemas to store document provenance, custodian tags, Bates numbers, and hash digests.
- Establish tokenization, language analyzers, and stemming rules optimized for {{matter_type}} evidentiary documents.
- Configure inverted index field mappings in {{primary_search_engine}} to support proximity searches, Boolean operators, and wildcard expansions.
- Design shard sizing, replication factor, and routing keys based on {{custodian_count}} to prevent hot-spotting.
- Set up payload storage boundaries separating raw document text, extracted metadata, and OCR-derived transcripts.
- Formulate immutable write-once-read-many (WORM) storage mechanics to satisfy {{retention_mandate}}.
- Structure index warm-up routines and memory cache allocations to support complex multi-term attorney search queries.
- Detail disaster recovery and zero-loss snapshotting procedures tailored to the search cluster.
Constraints
- MUST enforce cryptographic hash validation (SHA-256) on ingestion to guarantee chain of custody.
- MUST NOT allow mutable document updates; all updates must be appended as revised versions.
- Memory configurations must stay within standard compute sizing for {{primary_search_engine}}.
- Exclude vague recommendations; specify concrete index settings, analyzer names, and field types.
Output format
Litigation Hold Indexing & Search Brief
1. Metadata Catalog & Schema Mapping
(Document catalog structure and custody metadata fields)
2. Text Analysis & Index Configuration
(Analyzers, tokenizers, custom filters, and field types for {{primary_search_engine}})
3. Sharding, Routing & Capacity Strategy
(Shard allocations, segment merges, and node memory profiles)
4. Chain-of-Custody & Integrity Controls
(WORM verification, immutable logging, and snapshot schedule)
Self-review
- Confirm that search analyzer configurations support Boolean and proximity syntax needed for {{matter_type}}.
- Verify shard calculations directly reference {{unstructured_corpus_size}} and {{custodian_count}}.
- Ensure chain-of-custody requirements are rigorously addressed in the output.
Explicit role, a named task, and discrete steps the model can follow.
Background, inputs and variables the model needs before it starts.
Hard boundaries — what the model must and must not do.
A named, field-level shape for the response.
Ordered work items that force analysis before an answer.
Length and structure that travel across frontier models.
Signal density — instruction weight without padding.
Documented variables so the scaffold adapts to new inputs.
Quality bar, assumptions and behaviour when inputs are thin.
How much real usage the template has behind it.