Mandatory Intake Triage preparation
Nearly complete.
Until instructions change.
The latest email changes the relief. The draft still carries the old position. See the conflict, the revised note and the work still needed.
One instruction, two versions
Latest email:
retain the school-week arrangement.
Existing draft: proposes a changed school-week arrangement. Counsel needs to resolve the difference before relying on the draft.
Reconciliation neededThe files are there.
Do they still agree?
The Court’s FFP Notice identifies MIT package components, including compliance evidence, commencement materials, the request and summary forms, and application materials where relief is sought. The FFP Manual supplies the detailed preparation and filing guidance.
A new instruction can affect the relief, the supporting narrative and more than one draft. Without a clear record of the change, the next reviewer has to reopen the correspondence to work out which version reflects the client’s position.
The Harbour matter
An instruction changes.
The preparation follows.
Alex wants to retain the school-week arrangement. The earlier draft asks to change it. Follow counsel’s clarification into the revised working note and remaining-work list.
Judgment remains yours. You stay in control.
The email and draft no longer agree.
Inspect the fictional email and draft
Alex’s email, 15 October: keep the present school-week arrangement; discuss changes to holidays only.
Working draft, 12 October: request a changed school-week arrangement.
Prepared question for counsel
Does the 15 October email replace the earlier school-week instruction? Confirm the relief to carry into the MIT Summary and related application materials.
Inspect the fictional counsel instruction
16 October: confirmed with Alex. Retain the current school-week arrangement. Prepare the holiday issue for review. Keep the earlier draft as superseded.
Revised working note
Holiday issue for review
Current instruction: retain the school-week arrangement. Revise the proposed relief and supporting narrative consistently. Confirm the proposed holiday dates with Alex before settling the draft.
Updated preparation list
Remaining preparation
- Instructions: obtain proposed holiday dates from Alex.
- Drafts: reconcile relief and supporting narrative; counsel review pending.
- Disclosure: obtain and review the September statement.
Earlier draft retained as superseded. Revised working note is current for preparation only.
The current client email and draft differ. Counsel must settle the instruction.
Fictional demonstration. Nothing is sent, filed or scheduled. Resets when you reload.
Keep preparation
and Court status distinct.
Track review, signing or commissioning, submission, filing, return and service as the relevant events occur. The Manual separates package filing and service, CMO review and conference booking. An internal ready mark does not replace the Court’s confirmation.
Read the MIT working checklistDoes “draft available” mean ready to file?
No. Confirm current instructions, evidence, form requirements and review. Record signing or commissioning and subsequent procedural steps separately.
What happens to an earlier version?
Retain its history and identify the current working version. Make the changed instruction and affected material visible so the next reviewer can follow the revision.
What does the package-builder example produce?
The separate builder demonstration illustrates a working index and revision. Discuss the supported production scope during early access; this page does not provide an assembled Court-ready PDF.
Resolve the change.
Prepare from the right record.
Sources checked . Prepared by NISI Legal Systems Inc. for practitioner orientation. Check current Court directions for the matter. This page is not issued or endorsed by the Court.
Court FFP resources and formsRevised FFP Notice · 10 August 2026