What it shows

Documentation Index

Fetch the complete documentation index at: https://help.rytz.com.au/llms.txt

Use this file to discover all available pages before exploring further.

The Master Case File is structured as six sections. Each is generated by the platform’s AI synthesis from a different combination of inputs and serves a distinct purpose when you (or someone briefed by you) reads the document. This page walks each section with what it contains, what it draws from, and what to read for.

​

Section 1 — Executive Summary

A 200–400-word synthesis of the matter as it stands. The version a lawyer reads first.

​

What it contains

• Who — parties, children (with ages), key relationships
• Stage — where the matter is now (pre-action, application filed, interim hearing scheduled, etc.)
• Posture — what each party is seeking, where there’s agreement, where there’s contest
• Key recent events — the last 30–60 days of material activity
• Headline issues — the 2–4 things that drive the rest of the matter

​

Where it draws from

• Master Case File metadata
• Recent Evidence Portfolio additions
• Recent AI-assistant conversations
• Case Roadmap stage state
• Settlement Planner + Parenting Planner state

​

Reading patterns

The summary is most useful when read as the answer to: “if I had 60 seconds to brief someone on this matter, what would I say?” If you read the summary and it doesn’t reflect what you’d actually say, click Refresh — something has drifted.

​

Section 2 — Chronology / Timeline

Date-ordered list of every material event.

​

What it contains

Each entry has: date, event, source (the underlying Portfolio item or conversation), and a one-sentence summary. Where multiple events fall on the same date, they’re grouped.

​

Where it draws from

• Evidence Portfolio (item dates + descriptions)
• AI-assistant conversation history
• Affidavit drafts and filings
• Forms filed
• Court correspondence
• Master Case File user-entered events (you can add events directly via the MCF surface)

​

Reading patterns

The chronology is the factual spine of the matter. Two ways it pays off:

1. Pre-affidavit drafting — read the chronology to remember what happened before you start writing. The order it’s in matches the order most affidavits should follow.
2. Pattern detection — patterns are easier to see in a chronology than in raw notes. Repeated late changeovers cluster visually. Communications that always happen on Sundays before exchanges. Etc.

​

Section 3 — Evidence Matrix

Structured cross-reference of evidence by stage, topic, and source.

​

What it contains

A multi-axis grid:

• Rows — the seven court stages (Pre-action, Application, First court event, Interim, FDR, Trial preparation, Final)
• Columns — major topics (Parenting / Property / Family violence / Schooling / Medical / Financial / Disclosure / Other)
• Cells — count of evidence items, plus the top 3 by relevance

The matrix mirrors the Court Readiness Matrix at the dashboard level but presents it as a narrative section in the MCF — useful for handing to a lawyer who wants to see your evidence position before opening the Portfolio itself.

​

Where it draws from

• Evidence Portfolio items + tags + source classifications
• Stage Review decisions
• Court Readiness Matrix state

​

Reading patterns

Two reads worth doing:

1. By column (topic) — does each topic have the right evidence depth? A property matter with thin Financial-column evidence is a property matter that won’t go well.
2. By row (stage) — does each stage have what it needs? Cells in the Pre-action row should be substantial. Cells in the Trial row depend on whether trial is even on the table.

​

Section 4 — Strategy

The platform’s synthesis of where you are and the case theory the AI assistant is operating on.

​

What it contains

• Case theory — a 2–3 paragraph statement of how your matter “lines up”. E.g.: “The matter centres on parenting time and a parenting plan; both parties accept shared parental responsibility but disagree on routine schedule. The strongest evidence supports a primary-with-User pattern based on schooling continuity and the post-separation routine that has held for 14 months.”
• Leverage points — 3–5 specific factual or evidentiary positions that strengthen your case
• Risk points — 3–5 specific weaknesses or counter-arguments to be aware of
• Strategic options — typical paths forward (settle now, pursue interim orders, engage lawyer, escalate to trial) with the implications of each

​

Where it draws from

The Strategy section is the most synthesis-heavy. It draws on:

• Everything in the chronology
• Evidence Matrix density and gaps
• AI-assistant conversation history (especially strategic discussions)
• Settlement / Parenting / Case Roadmap planner state
• Comparative pattern matching against analogous matters (anonymised)

​

Reading patterns

The Strategy section is where you go before:

• A lawyer consultation (to brief the lawyer on where you think the matter sits)
• A negotiation session
• A decision-point you’ve been turning over

It is where you do not go to make decisions automatically. The platform’s synthesis is a starting point, not an instruction.

​

Section 5 — Next Actions

Prioritised list of what to do next.

​

What it contains

A ranked list, typically 5–10 items, each with:

• Action — what to do
• Why — why this is on the list
• By when — court-imposed deadlines, soft deadlines, or “no rush” tags
• Effort — rough time investment
• Where to do it — link to the relevant platform surface

Examples:

• “File Genuine Steps Certificate before applying — required by court rules. Effort: 30 min. Surface: /forms/genuine-steps-desktop”
• “Capture school report term 1 in Portfolio — chronology gap. Effort: 5 min. Surface: /evidence-portfolio”
• “Run Audit on draft affidavit — current draft has likely hearsay issues. Effort: 30 min. Surface: /affidavit-preparation/improve”

​

Where it draws from

• Court-imposed deadlines (Case Roadmap)
• Detected gaps (Court Readiness Matrix red cells, Plan Readiness amber items)
• Strategy section’s leverage points
• AI-assistant detected next-step suggestions

​

Reading patterns

The Next Actions list is most useful as a daily check-in. Open the MCF, scan the actions, do the highest-priority + lowest-effort one. Leave the screen open while you do it; refresh when done. The list is not a to-do app. The platform’s job is to surface what’s important; sequencing is yours.

​

Section 6 — Consultation Insights

Captures of any external professional engagements.

​

What it contains

For each engagement (lawyer consultation, FDR session, expert witness briefing, etc.):

• Date and provider
• What was discussed — the topics covered
• What was advised — specific advice given
• What was agreed — actions you committed to
• Open questions — things that came up that need follow-up

​

Where it draws from

This section is mostly user-entered. After a consultation, you (or the platform’s voice-note transcription if you record the session and upload) capture the engagement. The platform structures it into the section format. The platform also auto-extracts action items into the Next Actions section.

​

Reading patterns

This is the section that most often becomes the difference between a chaotic matter and an organised one. Lawyer consultations cost real money; capturing the substance immediately afterward, and then referring back to the capture before the next consultation, is one of the highest-leverage practices a self-rep can adopt.

​

How the MCF prioritises

A practical question: what gets included and what gets left out? The platform applies relevance filters at synthesis time:

• Material events make the chronology — trivial events don’t
• Strategically-significant items make the Strategy section — minor items don’t
• Time-bound or court-driven items lead Next Actions — soft items follow
• The most-recent material activity drives the Executive Summary

When the platform omits something you think should be there, it’s usually because the item lacks tags, dates, or descriptions specific enough to register as material. Improving the underlying data (better tags, clearer descriptions) is the fix.

​

What’s next