---
title: "Draft the group or class definition from the claim theory"
url: "https://ailawframework.com/practice/class-actions-representative-proceedings/draft-the-group-or-class-definition-from-the-claim-theory"
type: "task"
site: "AI Law Framework"
id: "A7-T1-R2"
practice_area: "Class Actions / Representative Proceedings"
tier: "yellow"
lawyer_review: "required"
last_reviewed: "2026-10-22"
---

# Draft the group or class definition from the claim theory

> Draft alternative class definitions (included, excluded, class period) mapped to the pleaded claims, and list over- and under-inclusion risks.

Canonical page: https://ailawframework.com/practice/class-actions-representative-proceedings/draft-the-group-or-class-definition-from-the-claim-theory  
Last reviewed: 2026-10-22

Site index for agents: https://ailawframework.com/llms.txt

## Key facts

| Fact | Value |
| --- | --- |
| Practice area | [Class Actions / Representative Proceedings](https://ailawframework.com/practice/class-actions-representative-proceedings.md) |
| Human involvement | Yellow: Lawyer and AI draft together |
| How AI is used | Draft alternative class definitions (included, excluded, class period) mapped to the pleaded claims, and list over- and under-inclusion risks. |
| What the lawyer must review | Make the definition workable for notice and administration Check it against evidence of who was actually affected |
| Written for / versions | 1 jurisdiction versions below |

## Checking plan

**Lawyer review required**

The responsible lawyer reviews the work against the instructions, sources and intended use.

- What the AI does: Potential support includes organising research leads and extracting and organising information. Confirm the tool’s capability and permitted scope.
- What the lawyer does: Set the scope, verify the evidence, resolve exceptions and approve the final output for its intended use.
- Who reviews: Responsible lawyer with competence in the matter
- Basis: Suggested checking approach based on the task guidance. Complete the assessment for the actual tool, information and jurisdiction.
- Why: The plan reflects the described work and review requirements. Policy colours are not used to determine permission or checking.

## Checks the lawyer makes

1. Calculate operative dates independently from the current rule and actual triggering event. Check exceptions and record the verified deadline.
2. Review operative clauses in the complete document, including definitions, cross-references, schedules and inconsistencies with the instructions.
3. Confirm that the actual tool, feature and processing terms permit use of this information, including access, retention, training and disclosure conditions.
4. Verify the applicable jurisdiction and the version of each relevant law, rule or instrument in force at the material time.
5. Confirm the output against the client’s instructions and the complete relevant source material, including omissions or contradictions.
6. Resolve exceptions and record the responsible lawyer’s approval of the exact output and intended use.

## Notes

- Confirm the required checking with the responsible lawyer before work starts. The checking approach does not establish permission to use AI.

## Forms and precedents for this task

| Form or precedent | Kind | AI level | Summary |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| [Class-action litigation hold notice](https://ailawframework.com/precedents/class-actions-representative-proceedings/us-class-litigation-hold-notice.md) | Notice | Yellow | Internal hold for a putative federal class action, covering the merits file and the systems that show who is in the proposed class. It goes to the client's custodians, not to absent class members. |
| [Pre-filing memo: Part IVA threshold requirements and class definition](https://ailawframework.com/precedents/class-actions-representative-proceedings/part-iva-threshold-and-class-definition-memo.md) | Memo | Red | Internal memo template testing a proposed Federal Court class action against s 33C (7 or more persons, related circumstances, substantial common issue), s 33H (originating process) and the s 33N… |
| [Rule 26(f) report for a putative class action](https://ailawframework.com/precedents/class-actions-representative-proceedings/us-class-rule-26f-discovery-plan.md) | Court document | Yellow | Rule 26(f) discovery plan for a putative class action, including whether certification discovery and merits discovery should be phased, and how class-member data will be handled. |
| [Deposition outline: class representative and Rule 30(b)(6)](https://ailawframework.com/precedents/class-actions-representative-proceedings/us-class-deposition-outline.md) | Checklist | Yellow | Question outline for the deposition of a proposed class representative and for a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition on the systems that define the class. Questions only. No script of testimony. |

Signed-in accounts can read the full text of each one.

## Jurisdiction versions

| Jurisdiction | Level |
| --- | --- |
| [United States](https://ailawframework.com/practice/class-actions-representative-proceedings/draft-the-group-or-class-definition-from-the-claim-theory/united-states.md) | Yellow |

*Practice guidance for planning and review. Confirm current primary sources and the requirements of the actual matter. This is general information, not legal advice.*