Category: E-Discovery and Legal Holds
Review
Also known as: Records Review, Disposition Review
Simply put
A review is the act of carefully examining something to assess its quality, condition, or status, or to reconsider it before making a decision. In a records management context, this typically means looking again at records or arrangements in order to decide what should happen to them next. The evidence available defines the term only in a general, everyday sense rather than in specialized recordkeeping terms.
Formal definition
In general usage, a review is an act or process of carefully examining or evaluating the quality, condition, or status of something, and it can also mean reconsidering a matter again in order to make changes or reach a decision. The general-purpose sources provided define the term broadly and do not supply a records-management-specific definition; consequently, any application to recordkeeping activities such as disposition review, retention review, or appraisal should be understood as an extension of this general meaning rather than a scope established by the evidence at hand. Practitioners should note that specific recordkeeping meanings of review, including the point in a lifecycle at which records are reassessed for retention, transfer, or destruction, depend on organizational policy, applicable standards, and jurisdiction, none of which are addressed in the supplied sources.
Why it matters
In records management, review functions as a decision point rather than a routine administrative step. When records or arrangements are examined again, the outcome typically shapes what happens next in the lifecycle: whether records are retained for a further period, transferred to another custodian, marked for permanent preservation, or authorized for destruction. Because these outcomes carry evidential, legal, and operational consequences, the act of reviewing is where organizational policy and accountability are exercised in practice. It is worth stressing, however, that the evidence available here defines review only in a general, everyday sense; the specialized recordkeeping applications described below are extensions of that general meaning rather than definitions established by the sources.
Who it's relevant to
Records managers
Records managers often treat review as the moment at which records or retention arrangements are reassessed before a lifecycle decision is made. Because the term carries only a general meaning in the evidence here, practitioners should rely on their own organizational procedures and applicable standards to define what a records review entails in practice, rather than treating the everyday definition as an operational specification.
Information governance officers
For those responsible for broader accountability frameworks, review is relevant as a control point where policy is applied and decisions are documented. The general definition of reconsidering a matter in order to make changes or reach a decision maps onto governance review activities, but the specific scope, triggers, and authority for such reviews depend on policy and jurisdiction not covered by the sources.
Archivists and appraisal staff
Where review informs appraisal or decisions about transfer and permanent preservation, staff should note that the term as defined here does not establish appraisal criteria or preservation thresholds. Any connection between a general review and archival appraisal should be understood as an extension of the everyday meaning and grounded instead in relevant standards and institutional practice.
Compliance and legal leads
Compliance and legal professionals may encounter review in the context of reassessing whether records must be retained, held, or disposed of. Because statutory retention obligations, legal holds, and related requirements vary by jurisdiction and sector and are not addressed in the supplied sources, any review carrying legal consequence should be governed by qualified, jurisdiction-specific advice rather than the general definition.
Inside Review
Disposition review
The assessment conducted at or before the end of a retention period to determine whether records should proceed to their scheduled disposition action, such as destruction, transfer, or continued retention. This step often confirms that no legal hold, ongoing business need, or outstanding obligation prevents the planned action.
Retention schedule review
The periodic examination of a retention schedule to verify that its classes, retention periods, and disposition actions remain accurate and defensible in light of current business functions, and applicable legal, regulatory, and organizational requirements, which typically vary by jurisdiction and sector.
Appraisal review
The evaluation of records to determine their value and appropriate treatment, which may inform whether records warrant permanent preservation, transfer to an archive, or eventual destruction. This is distinct from routine disposition review, though the two may be connected in practice.
Compliance or audit review
A check of recordkeeping activities against established policies, procedures, and requirements to assess whether controls are operating as intended. This may cover classification accuracy, adherence to retention rules, and the integrity of disposition documentation.
Access and content review
The examination of record content, often in the context of freedom of information requests, privacy obligations, or legal discovery, to identify material that is releasable, exempt, or subject to redaction. Specific obligations depend on jurisdiction and the applicable legal framework.
Review triggers and cadence
The events or intervals that prompt a review, which may be time-based (scheduled periodic reviews), event-based (organizational change, new regulation, litigation), or system-generated (a retention period reaching its end). Cadence is typically set by organizational policy.
Documentation of review outcomes
The metadata and records created to evidence that a review occurred, who conducted it, what was decided, and the basis for the decision. Such documentation supports the accountability, integrity, and defensibility of subsequent actions.
Common questions
Answers to the questions practitioners most commonly ask about Review.
Is review the same as destruction?
No. Review is an evaluative step in which records due for a disposition decision are examined to determine the appropriate action. Destruction is only one possible outcome. Depending on the review's findings and organizational policy, records may instead be retained for a further period, transferred to another custodian, or preserved permanently. Treating review as synonymous with destruction conflates the assessment with one of its several potential dispositions.
Does review just mean checking retention periods have expired?
Not necessarily. While confirming that a retention period has elapsed is often part of review, the process typically involves a broader assessment. Review may consider whether records remain subject to a legal hold, whether ongoing business or regulatory value warrants continued retention, and which disposition action is defensible. Reducing review to a simple expiry check overlooks these evaluative dimensions, which can vary by jurisdiction, sector, and organizational policy.
When in the lifecycle should review typically be scheduled?
Review is often scheduled at the point where a retention period is due to lapse, so that a disposition decision can be made in a timely and documented manner. Some organizations also build in periodic reviews for records whose value or status may change over time. The precise timing generally depends on the applicable retention schedule and organizational policy.
Who is usually responsible for conducting a review?
Responsibility often falls to records management staff, sometimes in consultation with the business unit that created or owns the records, and with legal or compliance functions where legal holds or regulatory obligations may apply. The allocation of these roles typically depends on organizational structure and governance arrangements.
How should review decisions be documented?
Review decisions are typically recorded to support accountability and to provide evidence that disposition actions were carried out in a considered and defensible way. Documentation often captures what was reviewed, the decision reached, the rationale, and the responsible party. The level of detail and format generally depend on organizational policy and any applicable requirements.
What should be checked before a review leads to destruction?
Before any disposition involving destruction, it is generally prudent to confirm that no legal hold applies, that the relevant retention period has genuinely elapsed, and that there is no continuing business, regulatory, or evidential value that would warrant further retention. These checks help ensure the resulting action is defensible, though the specific obligations depend on jurisdiction, sector, and organizational policy.
Common misconceptions
A review is simply the point at which records are destroyed.
A review is a decision-making step, not an outcome. Depending on the findings and applicable policy, a review may result in destruction, transfer, permanent preservation, or continued retention. Disposition is broader than destruction, and a review often confirms which disposition action is appropriate.
Once a retention schedule is approved, it does not need to be reviewed again.
Retention schedules typically require periodic review to remain accurate and defensible, because business functions, and legal and regulatory requirements can change over time and vary by jurisdiction and sector. A schedule left unreviewed may authorize actions that are no longer appropriate.
A review can be treated as an informal, undocumented check.
For a review to support the integrity and defensibility of subsequent actions, it is generally documented, capturing who reviewed, what was decided, and the basis for the decision. Undocumented reviews weaken the evidential value of the recordkeeping process.
Best practices
Confirm the absence of any active legal hold, ongoing business need, or outstanding obligation before allowing records to proceed to their scheduled disposition action, since a hold typically suspends the planned action regardless of the retention period.
Establish clear triggers and a defined cadence for reviews, combining scheduled periodic reviews with event-based reviews prompted by organizational change, new regulation, or litigation.
Document each review, recording who conducted it, what was decided, the basis for the decision, and the resulting disposition action, so the process remains accountable and defensible.
Review retention schedules periodically against current business functions and applicable legal and regulatory requirements, recognizing that these vary by jurisdiction and sector and may change over time.
Distinguish disposition review from appraisal, and treat the determination of permanent value or archival transfer as a separate consideration from routine end-of-retention decisions.
Where reviews involve access, privacy, or freedom of information considerations, apply the relevant jurisdictional requirements to identify releasable, exempt, or redactable content rather than assuming a single uniform standard.