---
title: "Prepare a navigable hearing bundle index"
url: "https://ailawframework.com/practice/commercial-litigation-and-dispute-resolution/prepare-a-navigable-hearing-bundle-index"
type: "task"
site: "AI Law Framework"
id: "A5-P20260916-2"
practice_area: "Commercial Litigation & Dispute Resolution"
tier: "yellow"
lawyer_review: "required"
last_reviewed: "2026-09-23"
---

# Prepare a navigable hearing bundle index

> Draft a document index from a final lawyer-selected set, identify apparent duplicates and check proposed page links.

Canonical page: https://ailawframework.com/practice/commercial-litigation-and-dispute-resolution/prepare-a-navigable-hearing-bundle-index  
Last reviewed: 2026-09-23

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

## Key facts

| Fact | Value |
| --- | --- |
| Practice area | [Commercial Litigation & Dispute Resolution](https://ailawframework.com/practice/commercial-litigation-and-dispute-resolution.md) |
| Human involvement | Yellow: Lawyer and AI draft together |
| How AI is used | Draft a document index from a final lawyer-selected set, identify apparent duplicates and check proposed page links. |
| What the lawyer must review | Check every final index entry Confirm the bundle meets the applicable court order or practice requirements |
| Written for / versions | — |

## Checking plan

**Verify against sources**

A person checks every final index entry and confirms the bundle meets the applicable court order or practice requirements.

- What the AI does: Draft a document index from a final lawyer-selected set, identify apparent duplicates and check proposed page links.
- What the lawyer does: Make the legal assessment, check the source material and authorise the output for its intended use.
- Who reviews: Lawyer competent in this practice area
- Basis: Practical workflow informed by the linked primary sources; the traffic light and working checks are editorial guidance, not a court classification.
- Why: The level reflects the consequence of an error and the amount of independent review the described output needs.
- Restriction: Green means limited organisation support with checking; it does not permit unrestricted uploads or automated filing.
- Written for: NSW

## Checks the lawyer makes

1. Use the final selected document set and current bundle directions; do not let the model decide what evidence to omit.
2. Check every title, date, version and first and last page against the final bundle.
3. Open all index links and verify that apparent duplicates are truly identical before removing any copy.
4. Confirm redactions, access restrictions, pagination and the final bundle version before circulation or filing.

## Notes

- These are suggested working checks. The cited court, tribunal or scheme requirements apply only within their stated scope.

## Practical guide

Jurisdiction: Australian litigation; comply with the particular court’s bundle requirements

**Deliverable**: A checked index with working page links.

**Inputs**

- Final selected documents
- Bundle directions
- Approved redactions

**Example**: Illustrative example: Two files have similar names but different signed pages. The index keeps both versions until the lawyer decides which is required.

**Stop and escalate when**

- A document is incomplete, incorrectly redacted or subject to an unresolved access restriction.
- The final bundle differs from the indexed version.

Checked 2026-09-16.

## Sources

- [Supreme Court of NSW: SC Gen 23, amended 28 January 2025](https://supremecourt.nsw.gov.au/documents/Practice-and-Procedure/Practice-Notes/general/current/PN_SC_Gen_23.pdf) (checked 2026-09-16)

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