Hey guys, just making sure I’m doing this right and could use some feedback. I’ve reviewed the guide for Document Review and the difference between Routine and Significant is throwing me for something like this where it is a simple email exchange, which to my mind should be labelled “routine”, but when I google the person planning to meet up with Jeffrey, it is a hacker and significant individual (or at least someone I would think should be considered significant). So I choose “Significant”.
However, this document reached a consensus that it should be ‘routine’. Am I wrong in my assessment? And if so, what does that mean for the Document Review instructions? Could we make it more clear? Thanks for the guidance!
1 Like
@bewitchedfen
Great question and it took me a while to get the hang of it when I started too!
For that particular document, I would flag it as routine and add the POI from either the existing list or add new person sections. This will allow us to identify the document is associated with the POI, while the email itself doesn’t have anything significant when considered as a standalone document.
2 Likes
Thank you so much! That makes a lot of sense. To summarize: Significant is really 1) has a person of interest (potentially, I know there might be other reasons something is significant) and 2) has something impactful in there about a person of interest. Routine would then also include docs with a person of interest but participating in routine things (like setting up a meeting).
1 Like
Agree! And to further that, if the email is mundane:
- Let’s get together soon
- Does JE have availability
- Install flag poles on LSJ
- Where are you? - add the locations mentioned, but flag as Routine
Things I’d flag as significant:
- Notable travel, like JE in Paris and communicating with Daniel Siad (an EU recruiter)
- Do you have someone for me to meet, and a POI describing an individual (usually female in some sexualized way).
- I enjoyed our time together last weekend. The little one was naughty
- Check out this video (and language indicating it may be a “bad” video)
- Financial communications regarding large transfers, withdrawals, payments on behalf of others for medical reasons (depending on the situation)
I hope this helps some more!
You can always send me doc IDs through DM if you’d like a second opinion or rationale behind how the masses labeled something.
2 Likes
Thanks! I actually did just send you one that was related to financials sort of via DM. This helped so much!! Thanks!!
1 Like
@RaveKittie We aren’t all this well versed in who is who… maybe a feature could be added that when a name is added (or combo of names, or name and location) a popup appears and informs context of who it is, so we can get this context while reviewing? The popups would be written by high trust members or members who investigate that specific subject I’d assume. But still, if I’d’ve seen “JE in Paris, talking to Siad” yesterday, I’d’ve flagged it as routine
3 Likes
Great call out. And will leave it to the site admin to determine if your suggestion is feasible or not!
Right now, I keep my Review page open and generally bounce around to resource pages (in another tab), like Persons on Epstein Exposed or just doing a general google search on the persons name to learn more before I make a decision.
Having a feature directly embedded into the review process would probably streamline things, but could also make the page feel overwhelming.
@EpsteinExposedAdmin - perhaps in the dead space under the review box, you could have a really brief AI summary appear (similar to what is on the persons page), when your OCR has identified (or has a partial match to) an individuals name within the file that’s being reviewed? Something like this:
- either the first short blurb or the longer paragraph?
