Skip to content
BriefCatch
Esc
↑↓navigate↵open⌘Jpreview
On this page

Review a document

What happens between upload and results, how the review editor is laid out, and how to pick a review back up later.

A review is one pass of the BriefCatch engine over one document. It produces writing suggestions, citation-format corrections, and consistency findings, and it opens the door to RealityCheck, which is a separate, explicitly started run.

Which review features you get varies by plan and organization.

Two things people mix up

What it is Cost
Document review The pass described on this page: writing, clarity, proofing, and citation format Not metered
RealityCheck A separate run you start deliberately, checking whether an authority supports the proposition it is cited for Spends credits

Running a review never starts a RealityCheck, and never spends a credit.

From upload to results

Upload or pick a file

From My Documents, choose Upload document, or add one from a connected drive. The upload dialog validates the file and asks where the copy should live afterwards. See My Documents.

Analysis runs

The editor opens and shows progress: uploading, extracting text, analyzing, extracting citations. During busy periods you may see Queued — position N. That is a real queue, not an error.

Results arrive

Suggestions populate the sidebar as each stage completes. Citation extraction starts automatically once the writing pass is done, so the Citations tab can still be working while the others are ready.

You work the suggestions

Accept, reject, or ignore each one. See Work with suggestions.

The review editor

app.briefcatch.com/document-review
BriefCatch / Smith v. Jones — Opening Brief.docx660 creditsAA
Smith v. Jones — Opening Brief.docx20 suggestions remaining
Saved 4:12 PM

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

Plaintiff respectfully submits this brief in opposition. It is submitted that the defendant was negligent in its handling of the underlying agreement, as the record before this Court plainly reflects.

Should the Court find in the event that the Court should determine that a genuine dispute of material fact exists, summary judgment must be denied under 2nd Cir. precedent.

All20
Style6
Clarity5
Proofing7
Citations2
Style
Original: It is submitted that the defendant was negligent
Suggested: The defendant was negligent

Passive framing ("it is submitted that") adds no meaning — state the claim directly.

AcceptReject
Conciseness
Original: in the event that the Court should determine
Suggested: if the Court determines

Six words do the same work as this eight-word phrase.

AcceptReject
Citation
Original: 2nd Cir.
Suggested: 2d Cir.

If you're referring to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, the proper abbreviation is 2d Cir.

AcceptReject
72
Solid draft
2 accepted · 18 left
Re-analyze
The review editor: document on the left, suggestions on the right, grouped into All, Style, Clarity, Proofing, and Citations. The score band at the bottom tracks how much of the review is left to work through.

The screen has three parts:

  • The header — the file name, how many suggestions remain, the save state (Saving, Saved HH, No changes, or Save failed), and a File menu with Export to Word (.docx), Export PDF, and Review history. Saving is automatic; there is no manual save button.
  • The document — a real editor. You can type in it. Edits are saved back to the stored copy, and the toolbar carries the usual formatting controls, zoom, and a ruler.
  • The review sidebar — tabs across the top and suggestion cards below.

The sidebar also switches between views: BriefCatch (the suggestions), Reports, BriefChat, Reality Check, and Settings.

Progress

The sidebar tracks how many suggestions are outstanding. The editor deliberately does not show a writing score: an earlier version did, and it was removed because the number was a presentation-only heuristic with nothing measured behind it.

Scores do exist, but in Reports, where they are computed per category against the document. Those are editorial signals about the writing, and say nothing about whether the argument is correct or the filing is sound.

Re-analyzing

Re-analyze document runs the engine again over the current text. Reach for it after substantial edits, when suggestions no longer line up with the passages they refer to. On an expired trial the control is replaced by Your trial has expired — upgrade to re-analyze.

Re-analysis replaces the current findings. Anything you had already accepted stays in the document; anything outstanding is recalculated.

Coming back later

The library keeps recent documents with their review status, suggestion progress, and expiry. Opening a reviewed document reopens the review where you left it.

Details in the library opens the document’s history — previous review runs, and version and author history where available.

If the stored document has expired, its metadata may still be listed but the document cannot be opened. Re-upload the source file to review it again.

When something goes wrong

  • “Analysis service is unavailable. Please try again later.” — the engine could not be reached. The document is safe; retry the review rather than re-uploading.
  • “Failed to load suggestions. Please try again.” — results exist but did not load. Refresh before re-analyzing; re-analyzing throws away findings that were only failing to display.
  • Progress stops advancing — if the product offers Try again, use it once. See Troubleshooting.

Was this page helpful?