Mike Swanson
c74e5bccbb
Author: Mike Swanson Machine: DESKTOP-0O8A1RL Timestamp: 2026-05-13 10:19:52
9.1 KiB
9.1 KiB
Nichols Case Analysis — Folder Structure & Prompt Structuring
Source: NICHOLS, LUIS.rar (SMB case folder) Purpose: Cross-reference real case folder structure with Robert's template; analyze demand letter construction to inform prompt design
1. Actual Folder Structure vs. Template
Robert's template uses 11 numbered folders. The real SMB case uses named folders with sub-folders:
| Real Folder | Maps To Template | Notes |
|---|---|---|
INTAKE/ |
01 Intake and Client Facts | Fee agreement, intake form, liens & costs summary |
ACCIDENT REPORT/ |
02 Liability Documents | TPD report + records request |
PHOTOS TAKEN BY CLIENT/ |
03 Photos and Videos | Vehicle damage photos |
DOCS FROM CLIENT/ |
01 (partial) | IDs, insurance cards, UC summary, transaction receipts |
MEDICAL RECORDS & BILLS/ |
05 + 06 combined | All provider R&B in one folder |
LIENS/Cigna/ |
07 Liens and LOPs | ERISA proof letters, Rawlings/Machinify correspondence |
WAGE LOSS/ |
08 Wage Loss | Wage loss form |
CORRESPONDENCE/State Farm-Def/ |
09 Adjuster Correspondence | Rep letters, SF responses |
CORRESPONDENCE/Geico-UM UIM/ |
09 (partial) | UIM carrier correspondence, DEC page, LOA |
SETTLEMENT DEMAND/ |
11 AI Output | Demand letter (this is OUTPUT, not input) |
IMPACT STATEMENT/ |
Not in template | Client's written impact narrative — critical input |
MEDICAL REQUESTS/ |
Not in template | Admin correspondence to obtain records — NOT useful to AI |
COSTS/ |
Not in template | Paid receipts for record retrieval — NOT useful to AI |
NOTES/, NOTES.docx |
Not in template | Attorney case notes — high value |
Eval Sheet - Nichols.xlsx |
Not in template | Case facts, parties, insurance info, summary — high value |
Critical finding: The firm does not use Robert's 11-folder template in practice. The app must accommodate the real named-folder structure, not the template.
2. Document-to-Demand-Letter Cross-Reference
| Demand Letter Section | Source Documents |
|---|---|
| Opening — claim number, adjuster, settlement deadline | Eval Sheet - Nichols.xlsx (Cassandra Luque, claim 03-91P4-55L) |
| Total specials ($7,538.68) | INTAKE/Liens & Medical Costs.pdf |
| Liability narrative — police diagram, A.R.S. citation, driver statements | ACCIDENT REPORT/TPD Report.pdf |
| Property damage description | PHOTOS TAKEN BY CLIENT/ (referenced visually) |
| Medical chronology (Oct 6 – Jan 7) | MEDICAL RECORDS & BILLS/ — four providers |
| Specials breakdown by provider | MEDICAL RECORDS & BILLS/ — itemized from bills |
| Pain/function/loss of enjoyment | IMPACT STATEMENT/Impact Statement.pdf |
| Wage loss narrative (3 weeks, career adjustment) | WAGE LOSS/Wage Loss Form.pdf + Impact Statement |
| Future damages (residual at discharge) | MEDICAL RECORDS & BILLS/NWMC R&B.pdf (PT discharge notes) |
| Causation / no pre-existing condition | MEDICAL RECORDS & BILLS/ (PT notes: "no past medical history") |
| Arizona jury value framing | No source doc — attorney judgment / style |
| Settlement posture / deadline | No source doc — firm boilerplate |
Documents NOT referenced in the demand letter:
MEDICAL REQUESTS/— admin only, never citedCOSTS/— admin only, never citedCORRESPONDENCE/— rep letters and SF/Geico responses not cited in demandLIENS/— Cigna lien acknowledged but not yet resolved at time of demand
3. Key Observations for Prompt Design
3a. Document categories to INCLUDE in AI prompt
Send these to Claude, labeled by category:
- Eval Sheet / Intake Form — parties, claim numbers, accident summary, injuries, insurance
- Police Report — liability facts, diagram, citation, A.R.S. section, driver statements
- Medical Records & Bills — full chronology, diagnoses, treatment progression, discharge notes, provider totals
- Impact Statement — client narrative, functional limitations, wage loss story
- Wage Loss Form — documented lost work and earnings
- Liens correspondence — lien holder identity, amounts if known, ERISA status
- Vehicle photos — Claude vision; describe damage for liability section
- Attorney notes — attorney's own framing and emphasis points
3b. Document categories to EXCLUDE from AI prompt
These add noise, inflate token count, and contain no case-analysis value:
MEDICAL REQUESTS/— letters to providers requesting records; content is boilerplateCOSTS/— paid receipts for CIOX/ChartSwap; dollar amounts already in Liens & Costs summaryCORRESPONDENCE/rep letters — standard form letters; no case factsSETTLEMENT DEMAND/— this is the OUTPUT, never feed back as inputThumbs.db— Windows thumbnail cache, always skip- Duplicate files (e.g., "Northwest Urgent Care R&B (dup).pdf")
3c. Demand letter style observations
Robert's demand letter is significantly more aggressive and structured than a generic PI demand. The prompt must capture this:
- No opening dollar demand — demands a written offer from the adjuster instead
- Trial-ready framing throughout — "the first liability exhibit for the jury will be..."
- Preemptive defense rebuttal — addresses "minor impact / soft tissue" objection directly
- Arizona-specific statutory language — A.R.S. citations, jury instruction framing
- Human story leads — client's age, occupation, and how injury affects livelihood
- Specials presented as gross billed, with exclusions clearly noted
- Future damages discussed without a dollar figure — flags residual findings without fabricating a number
- Eggshell plaintiff doctrine addressed explicitly
- Specific instructions to the adjuster on how to format their response
3d. Prompt restructuring recommendations
Robert's current prompt asks for 10 items in one pass. Recommend splitting into two stages:
Stage 1 — Fact extraction (per document category):
For each uploaded document, extract:
- Dates and timeline entries
- Provider names and diagnoses
- Dollar amounts (bills, liens, lost wages)
- Liability facts (parties, citations, statements)
- Client-reported symptoms and limitations
- Missing items (providers referenced but no records received)
Output as structured JSON — not prose.
Stage 2 — Demand letter generation (using Stage 1 output):
Using the extracted facts, draft a settlement demand letter in the style of
Grabb & Durando, P.C.:
- No opening dollar demand; request a written offer by [deadline]
- Lead with liability — cite the police report, citation, A.R.S. section, driver statements
- Frame property damage using photo descriptions
- Include a full medical chronology in date order, by provider
- Calculate gross billed specials by provider, total them, note exclusions
- Human story section: client's age, occupation, how injury affects earning ability
- Address the anticipated "soft tissue / minor impact" defense preemptively
- Reference Arizona jury value and jury instruction framing
- Specify what the adjuster's response must include
- Future damages: flag residual findings without fabricating a dollar figure
- Eggshell plaintiff doctrine if pre-existing susceptibility is plausible
Why two stages: Stage 1 with structured JSON output gives the app an auditable fact base. Staff can review the extracted facts before the demand is drafted. If a bill amount or date is wrong, they catch it at Stage 1, not buried in a paragraph.
4. App Design Implications
- Folder mapping UI needed — since the real folder names don't match the template, the upload UI should let staff map their folders to the standard categories (or auto-detect by name)
- Exclusion logic — app should auto-exclude MEDICAL REQUESTS, COSTS, Thumbs.db, and duplicates
- Eval Sheet parsing — the Excel file is high-value structured data; parse it separately and inject as JSON context (don't treat as a document to summarize)
- Photo handling — Claude vision for vehicle damage photos; describe damage for liability section
- Specials tally — Stage 1 should output a provider-by-provider specials table that staff verifies before Stage 2 runs
- Tracked changes — firm keeps
.tracked.docxversions; app should save both clean and tracked output - Lien status — Cigna/Rawlings lien was still unresolved at demand time; app should flag "lien unresolved" as a checklist item
5. Updated Document Category Mapping (for app)
| App Category Label | Real Folder(s) | Priority |
|---|---|---|
| Intake / Case Facts | INTAKE/, Eval Sheet, DOCS FROM CLIENT/ |
High |
| Liability / Police Report | ACCIDENT REPORT/ |
High |
| Photos | PHOTOS TAKEN BY CLIENT/ |
High (vision) |
| Medical Records & Bills | MEDICAL RECORDS & BILLS/ |
High |
| Impact Statement | IMPACT STATEMENT/ |
High |
| Wage Loss | WAGE LOSS/ |
High |
| Liens & LOPs | LIENS/ |
Medium |
| Adjuster Correspondence | CORRESPONDENCE/State Farm-Def/, CORRESPONDENCE/Geico-UM UIM/ |
Low |
| Attorney Notes | NOTES/, NOTES.docx |
Medium |
| SKIP | MEDICAL REQUESTS/, COSTS/, SETTLEMENT DEMAND/, Thumbs.db |
Exclude |