[EDRM Editor’s Note: This article presents EDRM’s official response to the public comments submitted on EDRM 2.0. EDRM is grateful to everyone who devoted time and attention to providing feedback. The discussion and disposition of the comments that follow were prepared by EDRM 2.0 Project Trustees Shannon Bales, Rian Kennedy, Stephanie Clerkin, and Brett Burney, with guidance from David Cohen, Chair of the EDRM Project Trustees.]
Introduction
Since its introduction in 2005, the Electronic Discovery Reference Model has provided courts, legal teams, government agencies, service providers, technologists, and educators with a shared framework and common language for understanding the discovery process. EDRM 2.0 is the first substantive update to the model since the full Information Governance Reference Model was incorporated. It reflects two decades of change in technology, data volumes, legal requirements, regulatory expectations, cross-functional practice, and judicial decisions.
EDRM 2.0 is intentionally broad, flexible, and high-level. It is a reference model, not a prescriptive workflow or an exhaustive technical standard.
EDRM 2.0 Project Trustees.
EDRM 2.0 was developed over approximately two years through an open and collaborative process involving approximately 150 volunteer contributors from across the global EDRM community. Contributors represented a broad spectrum of the industry, including in-house legal departments, law firms, service providers, technology professionals, academics, educators, and members of the judiciary. The process included extensive discussion, debate, voting, review, and revision of proposed versions of the model.
EDRM 2.0 is intentionally broad, flexible, and high-level. It is a reference model, not a prescriptive workflow or an exhaustive technical standard. Its simplicity allows it to remain easy to understand and useful across a wide range of organizations, technologies, jurisdictions, matters, and educational settings. The updated aesthetic was also selected with clarity and accessibility in mind, including the goal of making the model more inclusive for people with visual impairments. More detailed discussion of particular practices, technologies, workflows, and applications can be developed through definitions, scholarship, practical guidance, educational resources, and the thought leadership of those who contribute to the EDRM community.
Contributors represented a broad spectrum of the industry, including in-house legal departments, law firms, service providers, technology professionals, academics, educators, and members of the judiciary. The process included extensive discussion, debate, voting, review, and revision of proposed versions of the model.
EDRM 2.0 Project Trustees.
When the proposed model was released for public comment, it was met with overwhelmingly positive feedback and considerable excitement. Volunteer contributors and other members of the community praised the openness of the process and the democratic way in which a broad range of perspectives were considered. The development process included spirited debate and attracted broad support among project participants. The Trustees were equally appreciative of the thoughtful criticism and disagreement received during the public-comment period. Each submission was carefully considered, and the Trustees engaged in significant discussion to understand the concern and the point of view behind it.
Where there was significant disagreement, we sharpened our pencils, revisited our assumptions, and worked to get it right. Where feedback identified an opportunity to improve the model’s clarity or accuracy, changes were made. Where the Trustees decided not to make a change, the responses below explain the reasoning for retaining the current approach.
Some Public Comment suggestions addressed concerns that had already been voted on by the larger project team of over 100 participants, sometimes across several iterations. These included suggestions such as keeping Processing outside of the Data Acquisition box, or the placement and details included with regard to Information Governance. The result of each vote was given greater weight than individual public comments, though the substance of each individual comment was still considered.
Not every submission called for change. Some commenters supported particular elements of the model while suggesting refinements to others.
Each section below summarizes the principal issue raised, includes a representative quote from the submission, and provides the Trustees’ response.
Discussion and Disposition
1. Questions About Increasing Relevance and Continuing Analysis After Disposition
Main criticism:
The model’s late-stage visual logic may be counterintuitive. It appears to show Relevance continuing to increase after Review and Production, while Analysis continues even after Disposition.
Representative quote:
“Why does the relevance triangle continue to rise after review and post-production? I also wonder why the ‘analysis’ process continues post-disposition?”
Related supportive feedback:
Another commenter agreed that Relevance should peak earlier in the model and then level off as the matter moves toward Disposition.
“The Relevance section should really peak at or around the Production stage, and then it should level off (as currently depicted in the model), if not begin to decrease as the project heads toward Disposition.”
Trustees’ Response:
Thank you for identifying the potential confusion created by the model’s treatment of Relevance and Analysis in the later phases. The Trustees agree with the comment and have revised the model accordingly. The Relevance triangle now levels off earlier in the EDRM rather than continuing to rise through the final phases. The Analysis element has also been adjusted so that it ends with Disposition. These changes more accurately reflect the intended relationship among the elements and avoid suggesting that Relevance continues to increase indefinitely or that Analysis continues beyond the conclusion of the EDRM lifecycle.
The Relevance triangle now levels off earlier in the EDRM rather than continuing to rise through the final phases. The Analysis element has also been adjusted so that it ends with Disposition.
EDRM 2.0 Project Trustees.
The underlying principle of continuous Analysis remains an important feature of EDRM 2.0. Analysis is intended to reflect the role of legal judgment, analytics, data science, metrics, AI and emerging technologies throughout the discovery process rather than as a single, siloed activity. The revision clarifies that Analysis may continue through Disposition but does not extend beyond the lifecycle depicted in the model.
The related supportive feedback reinforced the Trustees’ view that Relevance should reach its highest level earlier in the model and remain relatively stable as the matter proceeds through its concluding phases.
2. Whether Information Governance Should Be Depicted as a Universal Foundation
This comment raised several issues, but its most fundamental structural concern involved the relationship between Information Governance and the EDRM.
Main criticism:
Presenting Information Governance as a uniform foundation for the entire EDRM may overstate its influence across all phases and may not reflect organizations in which some relevant information is not governed. The commenter suggested showing the relationship as contextual and variable rather than universally foundational.
Representative quote:
“Somehow, the relationship between IGRM and EDRM should be re-imagined, not with IGRM as a foundation, but that the presence of a strong IG program to manage information according to its value and risk reduces manual steps, potential sources of error, and saves time/cost when it exists.”
Trustees’ Response:
Thank you for raising the concern that showing the Information Governance Reference Model as the foundation may suggest a uniform relationship across all organizations and matters. After considering the comment, the Trustees have decided not to make a change to the model.
We believe that placing the IGRM beneath the EDRM is currently the clearest way to communicate that Information Governance supports and informs the discovery process. The foundational placement reflects that decisions concerning the creation, management, retention, security, privacy, and disposition of information affect downstream discovery activities. EDRM 2.0 therefore depicts the IGRM as the foundational layer supporting the discovery lifecycle.
This placement is not intended to suggest that every organization has the same level of Information Governance maturity, that all potentially relevant information is governed equally, or that the IGRM affects every phase in exactly the same way.
EDRM 2.0 Project Trustees.
This placement is not intended to suggest that every organization has the same level of Information Governance maturity, that all potentially relevant information is governed equally, or that the IGRM affects every phase in exactly the same way. It communicates a conceptual relationship between the models rather than an assessment of the maturity or effectiveness of any particular organization’s Information Governance program.
The model is intended primarily to educate users about the EDRM, which is why the EDRM elements remain in the more prominent position. Earlier iterations presented the EDRM and IGRM side by side, but that approach proved confusing to some users and made the relationship between the two models less clear.
The current design is intended to simplify that relationship by showing the IGRM as the foundation while keeping the EDRM as the principal focus. Because the model is intentionally broad and high-level, it does not attempt to depict every variation in the way Information Governance may operate within a particular organization.
3. Whether the IGRM Receives Enough Foundational Prominence
Main criticism:
The revised model does not give enough visual or conceptual prominence to the IGRM and its role as the foundation for the EDRM. One commenter specifically recommended keeping the full IGRM graphic visible alongside the EDRM.
Representative quotes:
“The proposed 2.0 model is missing the significance of the IGRM and its importance as the foundation.”
“I would keep the IGRM graphic fully visible on the left side of the graphic to ensure that practitioners do not lose sight of IG as the foundation on which ediscovery stands.”
Trustees’ Response:
Thank you for emphasizing the importance of the Information Governance Reference Model and its relationship to the EDRM. The Trustees agree that Information Governance provides an important foundation for effective discovery. After considering the comments, however, the Trustees have decided not to make a change to the model.
The current design intentionally places the IGRM beneath the EDRM to communicate its foundational role. At the same time, the model is intended primarily to educate users about the EDRM, which is why the EDRM phases receive greater visual prominence. This difference in prominence is not intended to minimize the importance of the IGRM. It is intended to maintain a clear focus on the model’s primary subject.
EDRM 2.0 builds upon the separately maintained IGRM, including IGRM version 4.1. Together, the models provide an integrated reference for the management of information from creation through final disposition.
EDRM 2.0 Project Trustees.
The Trustees also considered the suggestion to keep the full IGRM graphic visible alongside the EDRM. Earlier iterations presented the two models side by side, but that approach proved confusing to some users and made the relationship between them less clear. Restoring the full IGRM graphic to an equally prominent position would risk reintroducing that confusion. EDRM 2.0 builds upon the separately maintained IGRM, including IGRM version 4.1. Together, the models provide an integrated reference for the management of information from creation through final disposition. The EDRM 2.0 graphic does not need to reproduce every component of the IGRM to recognize and communicate that relationship.
The Trustees believe the current design strikes the appropriate balance by recognizing the IGRM as the foundation while keeping the EDRM clear, accessible, easy to follow, and central to the graphic. Additional detail concerning the relationship between the models can be developed through education, scholarship, practical guidance, and community thought leadership.
4. Whether Processing Should Remain Separate and Early Data Assessment Should Be Added
Main criticism and recommendation:
Processing should remain a distinct stage rather than being incorporated into Data Acquisition. Commenters noted that Processing performs a different function, produces a reduced dataset, and commonly involves different tools, formats, and professional skills. One commenter also proposed adding Early Data Assessment as a separate node or combining it with Processing.
Representative quotes:
“I’d still strongly advocate for maintaining Processing outside the Acquisition box as a separate stage.”
“I would separate the Processing node from Data Acquisition because processing is technically speaking not data acquisition.”
“It may also make sense to have a new, separate Early Data Assessment node either before or after Processing.”
Trustees’ Response:
Thank you for raising the concern that Processing should remain a separate stage because it involves distinct tools, skills, formats, and objectives. After considering the comments, the Trustees have decided not to make a change to the model.
We believe that placing Processing within the broader Data Acquisition grouping is the clearest way to show how closely Processing is connected to Identification, Preservation, and Collection in modern discovery workflows. Data Acquisition is used as an umbrella grouping in the model. It is not intended to redefine Processing as Collection or to suggest that the activities are technically identical.
Modern technologies increasingly permit Identification, Preservation, Collection, indexing, pre-processing, and Processing to occur simultaneously, in close coordination, or directly at the source. Grouping these activities recognizes the movement of discovery work to earlier points in the lifecycle and the increasing overlap among tools and workflows that were once more distinct. It can also provide earlier visibility into data and allow scope and volume to be addressed before information reaches Review.
Modern technologies increasingly permit Identification, Preservation, Collection, indexing, pre-processing, and Processing to occur simultaneously, in close coordination, or directly at the source. Grouping these activities recognizes the movement of discovery work to earlier points in the lifecycle and the increasing overlap among tools and workflows that were once more distinct.
EDRM 2.0 Project Trustees.
Processing remains separately labeled within the model to reflect its distinct technical and operational role. The grouping is intended to simplify the overall presentation while recognizing that Identification, Preservation, Collection, and Processing may overlap, occur iteratively, and be performed through increasingly integrated technologies and workflows.
The Trustees also considered the suggestion to add Early Data Assessment as a separate node or combine it with Processing. We agree that Early Data Assessment can be an important part of modern discovery practice. However, it may occur at different points in a matter and may involve activities associated with Identification, Collection, Processing, and Analysis.
The Data Acquisition framework and the model’s continuous treatment of Analysis are intended to accommodate early assessment without assigning it to one fixed position. Earlier insight and more effective Early Case or Data Assessment are among the practical benefits of moving discovery activity further upstream.
Depicting Early Data Assessment as a single, discrete phase could imply a fixed sequence or boundary that does not apply consistently across matters and workflows. EDRM 2.0 is intentionally broad and flexible so that it can support the widest possible range of practices and educational uses without attempting to include every activity as a separate node.
For these reasons, the Trustees believe Early Data Assessment is better addressed through explanatory materials, practical guidance, scholarship, and continued thought leadership surrounding the model rather than as an additional element in the core graphic.
5. Whether Acquisition and Culling Should Be Shown as Separate Data-Volume Processes
This comment is better viewed as a technical design recommendation than as a broad criticism of the model.
Main criticism or recommendation:
The yellow data-volume curve appears to combine two independent processes: the increase in operative data during acquisition and the decrease caused by culling. The commenter recommended visually distinguishing those processes.
Representative quote:
“They are technically two independent processes that operate to increase then reduce operative data volume.”
Related supportive feedback:
Another commenter expressly supported the overall depiction of Volume in the revised model.
“I agree with the depiction of Volume in yellow – it starts out much more voluminous than originally envisioned and by the time review is complete, the volume of relevant ESI is (or should be) significantly reduced.”
Trustees’ Response:
Thank you for pointing out that the increase in data through acquisition and the subsequent reduction of data through culling are technically distinct processes. The Trustees agree that acquisition and culling perform different functions. After considering the comment, however, the Trustees have decided not to make a change to the model.
The yellow Volume element is intended to provide a high-level depiction of how the overall volume of information changes throughout the EDRM lifecycle. It is not intended to characterize acquisition and culling as a single technical process or suggest that they are performed through the same methods.
The Volume-to-Relevance wave is intended to show that the potentially available body of information may be large during the earlier phases, while the operative volume is narrowed and Relevant information continues to be identified through the Review phase. That high-level continuum is consistent with the Data Acquisition framework’s emphasis on obtaining earlier visibility into information and reducing unnecessary volume before Review.
The model is intentionally simple and high-level so that it remains understandable and useful across a wide variety of workflows and educational settings. It is not intended to illustrate every technical process that may increase, reduce, or otherwise affect data volume.
EDRM 2.0 Project Trustees.
Separating the effects of acquisition and culling into multiple visual elements could add complexity to the graphic and imply more fixed boundaries between activities than may exist in practice. The model is intentionally simple and high-level so that it remains understandable and useful across a wide variety of workflows and educational settings. It is not intended to illustrate every technical process that may increase, reduce, or otherwise affect data volume.
The supportive feedback concerning the yellow Volume element also indicates that the overall concept is understandable to users. The Trustees therefore believe the current depiction provides the appropriate level of detail for a high-level reference model. The underlying technical distinctions can be explored more fully through supporting guidance, education, and community thought leadership.
6. Whether “Presentation” Should Be Renamed to Reflect Hearing Preparation and Management
Main criticism:
The label “Presentation” may be too narrow because it describes only the final display of information, while much of the work in this phase involves preparation, coordination, and management. The commenter recommended renaming the element and broadening its definition.
Representative quote:
“The name describes only the final act of display while the phase it labels is overwhelmingly preparation, coordination and management.”
Trustees’ Response:
Thank you for raising the concern that the term “Presentation” may not capture the full range of preparation, coordination, management, and technical work performed during this phase. After considering the comment, the Trustees have decided not to change the name of the phase.
“Presentation” is intended to describe a phase of the EDRM rather than a single action performed within it. Like other phase labels in the model, it encompasses multiple activities. The Trustees agree that preparation, coordination, management, technology planning, evidentiary organization, and other forms of support may all be undertaken during the Presentation phase.
The Trustees agree that preparation, coordination, management, technology planning, evidentiary organization, and other forms of support may all be undertaken during the Presentation phase.
EDRM 2.0 Project Trustees.
The use of the label “Presentation” is not intended to exclude or minimize those activities. Instead, it identifies the broader point in the EDRM lifecycle toward which those activities are directed. Labeling the phase “Presentation” does not preclude the many actions undertaken in preparation for and during that phase.
As with the other phase labels, “Presentation” is intentionally broad. The core model is designed to identify the principal phases of the EDRM without attempting to list every activity that may occur within them. This simplicity helps make the model easy to follow and adaptable to different educational and practical settings.
We welcome the commenter’s—and other practitioners’—continued involvement in developing scholarship, practical guidance, and educational resources that further explain the Presentation phase and the range of activities that may occur within it.
7. Whether the Redesign Adds Sufficient Value and Preserves the EDRM’s Visual Identity
Main criticism:
The revised graphic may not provide enough substantive or educational value to justify departing from the distinctive appearance of the original EDRM. The commenter believes the new design is less engaging and may weaken an established industry model and brand.
Representative quotes:
“On a substantive level, it adds nothing that isn’t already in the standard model.”
“Worse, it damages the original, which is vital, defining our industry and a great brand.”
Trustees’ Response:
Thank you for providing candid feedback about both the substance and visual design of EDRM 2.0. The Trustees recognize the importance of the original EDRM, its longstanding role within the industry, and the strong visual identity associated with it. After considering the comment, the Trustees have decided not to change the overall design or return to the prior visual treatment. The revised model reflects the work of approximately 150 volunteer contributors from a broad range of professional backgrounds, including in-house legal departments, law firms, technology and service providers, academia, education, and the judiciary. The work took place over approximately two years and involved repeated review, discussion, and spirited debate. The simplicity of EDRM 2.0 is intentional. The Trustees did not seek to create a graphic that captures every procedural, legal, or technical detail of modern discovery. Doing so would reduce the model’s clarity, accessibility, and usefulness as an educational framework. Instead, the model provides a common structure that can be applied across many different contexts, with greater detail supplied through definitions, scholarship, practical guidance, and community thought leadership.
The original EDRM has served as a shared visual reference and common language for discovery practice since 2005. Its value and legacy were central to the Trustees’ discussions. The project team seriously considered whether the original model should simply be retained but ultimately concluded that an update was necessary to reflect the significant evolution of discovery practice over the last two decades.
EDRM 2.0 Project Trustees.
The original EDRM has served as a shared visual reference and common language for discovery practice since 2005. Its value and legacy were central to the Trustees’ discussions. The project team seriously considered whether the original model should simply be retained but ultimately concluded that an update was necessary to reflect the significant evolution of discovery practice over the last two decades. EDRM 2.0 is not intended to diminish or discard the original model. It is intended to build upon that foundation while more accurately reflecting current technology, data volumes, regulatory expectations, legal practice, new technologies and judicial developments.
The revision includes substantive changes, including:
- Establishing Information Governance as the foundation of the discovery lifecycle;
- Grouping Identification, Preservation, Collection, and Processing within Data Acquisition;
- Treating Analysis as a continuous and connective activity across the EDRM;
- Adding Disposition as a distinct core phase; and
- Updating the representation of Volume and Relevance.
The Trustees also recognize that reactions to visual design are inherently subjective. The updated aesthetic was selected deliberately to improve clarity, reduce unnecessary visual complexity, and make the model more inclusive and accessible, including for people with visual impairments. These accessibility considerations were an important part of the design process, even though they may not be immediately apparent from viewing the graphic alone. That breadth of participation does not make the model immune from criticism, nor does it mean that every contributor agreed with every design decision. It does, however, reflect a substantial multidisciplinary effort to consider how the EDRM is understood, taught, and applied across the industry.
The model’s overall reception has been overwhelmingly positive, with contributors and other members of the community expressing excitement about the update and appreciation for the open, collaborative, and democratic process used to develop it. The Trustees recognize that broad support does not eliminate the value of contrary views, and the criticism of the model’s visual identity was considered seriously. At the same time, the positive reception and broad support among project participants reinforced the Trustees’ view that the updated design is clear, accessible, and responsive to the needs of a wide range of users. The development process itself was characterized by spirited debate and broad support among participants.
Although not every user will prefer the revised aesthetic, the Trustees believe the current design supports the model’s educational and accessibility goals while preserving the EDRM’s core concepts and identity. The original model remains an important part of the EDRM’s history and contribution to the industry. EDRM 2.0 is intended to continue and build upon that work rather than replace or diminish it.
8. Whether Data Acquisition Should More Clearly Show Sequence and Iteration
Main criticism and recommendation:
The arrangement of Identification, Preservation, Collection, and Processing within Data Acquisition may be confusing or may imply an incorrect relationship among those activities. One commenter recommended a more hierarchical arrangement, while another recommended a circular illustration to show the iterative relationship among Identification, Preservation, and Collection.
Representative quotes:
“Identification should be on top. Then preservation and collection on the next row Left to Right and then processing below that.”
“Illustrate just those three nodes in a circular fashion with each node in a circle with arrows encircling the three nodes to demonstrate how iterative this tripartite component of the model is.”
Trustees’ Response:
Thank you for offering specific recommendations concerning the arrangement of the activities within Data Acquisition. The Trustees agree that Identification, Preservation, Collection, and Processing may have important sequential and iterative relationships. After considering the proposed alternatives, however, the Trustees have decided not to change the current arrangement.
The placement of the activities within Data Acquisition is not intended to prescribe a fixed hierarchy or require that every matter proceed through those activities in a single order. Depending on the circumstances, the activities may overlap, repeat, occur simultaneously, or cause practitioners to return to an earlier activity as new information is learned.
The grouping reflects the reality that modern technologies increasingly permit in-place Identification, indexing, Preservation, Collection, and Processing. Identification may lead immediately to Preservation or Collection, Preservation and Collection may occur together, and some Processing may occur at or near the source. These activities therefore do not always occur as clearly separated, strictly sequential phases.
While the model is intended to be read left to right, a more hierarchical arrangement could suggest that the activities must occur in a fixed sequence. A circular treatment involving only Identification, Preservation, and Collection could imply that those three activities are uniquely iterative while Processing is not.
EDRM 2.0 Project Trustees.
While the model is intended to be read left to right, a more hierarchical arrangement could suggest that the activities must occur in a fixed sequence. A circular treatment involving only Identification, Preservation, and Collection could imply that those three activities are uniquely iterative while Processing is not. It could also add visual complexity to a model intended to provide a clear, high-level framework.
The current arrangement keeps the activities separately labeled while placing them within a common grouping. The Trustees believe this strikes the appropriate balance between recognizing their individual functions, showing their increasing operational interrelationship, and avoiding an overly prescriptive depiction of how they must occur in practice.
EDRM 2.0 is intentionally broad and simple so that it can accommodate a wide range of workflows and educational uses. The sequencing, iteration, and practical interaction among these activities can be explored in greater detail through supporting guidance, education, scholarship, and community thought leadership.
Cross-Comment Observation: Different Views on Information Governance and Visual Structure
The comments concerning Information Governance reflect different—and largely opposing—views:
- One commenter believes the IGRM should not be shown as a universal foundation for the EDRM.
- Other commenters believe the model does not give the IGRM enough prominence or should display the full IGRM graphic.
The Trustees’ responses clarify the intended balance. The IGRM is positioned as the foundation to show that Information Governance supports and informs the discovery process. The EDRM remains visually prominent because it is the principal subject of the model and the primary focus of its educational purpose.
The IGRM is positioned as the foundation to show that Information Governance supports and informs the discovery process. The EDRM remains visually prominent because it is the principal subject of the model and the primary focus of its educational purpose.
EDRM 2.0 Project Trustees.
The comments concerning Data Acquisition also proposed different visual solutions. One commenter recommended a hierarchical arrangement, while another recommended a circular arrangement. These differing recommendations illustrate the challenge of using a single graphic to represent workflows that may be sequential, overlapping, iterative, simultaneous, or dependent on the circumstances of a particular matter.
The EDRM is intended to provide a shared framework and common language, not to prescribe one mandatory workflow for every matter or organization. The model is intentionally broad, flexible, and high-level so that it can serve as an entry point for education and discussion across many different settings.
The model is therefore not intended to suggest that:
- Every organization has a mature Information Governance program;
- All potentially relevant information is governed in the same way;
- Information Governance has an identical operational effect at every phase;
- Every discovery matter proceeds through an identical sequence; or
- Activities placed within a common grouping have lost their distinct legal, technical, or operational characteristics.
Rather, the model is intended to communicate the principal concepts and relationships in a way that is clear, accessible, simple to follow, and flexible enough to apply across different organizations, technologies, jurisdictions, matters, and educational environments.
Continued Thought Leadership and Participation
EDRM 2.0 is intentionally a broad, flexible, and accessible reference model. Its purpose is to provide a common framework and vocabulary that can be understood and applied across a wide variety of organizations, technologies, jurisdictions, matters, and educational settings. The simplicity of the graphic is a feature of the model: it allows users to understand the principal concepts and relationships without prescribing a single workflow or attempting to capture every legal, technical, and operational detail.
The model is therefore intended to serve as a foundation for continued education and thought leadership rather than as the final word on every activity within the discovery lifecycle. The Trustees encourage practitioners, technologists, academics, educators, service providers, members of the judiciary, government professionals, and other stakeholders to develop commentary, scholarship, practical guidance, and educational resources that explore the model’s phases and their application in greater detail.
EDRM 2.0 reflects the collective work of approximately 150 contributors, but its continued value will depend on the participation, experience, and thought leadership of the broader community.
EDRM 2.0 Project Trustees.
We welcome the continued involvement of those who submitted public comments, including those who disagreed with particular decisions. Thoughtful disagreement makes community-consensus work stronger and helps identify areas in which additional explanation, scholarship, or practical guidance would be valuable. The public-comment process was designed to ensure that every submission was considered on its substance and that further review or revision could occur where warranted.
EDRM 2.0 reflects the collective work of approximately 150 contributors, but its continued value will depend on the participation, experience, and thought leadership of the broader community. The EDRM has always benefited from open discussion, practical insight, multidisciplinary participation, and constructive disagreement.
Continued engagement will help ensure that EDRM 2.0 remains a useful, relevant, accessible, and evolving resource as technology, legal obligations, and discovery practices continue to change.
For more information on the EDRM 2.0 project, please visit the project page here.
Assisted by GAI and LLM Technologies per EDRM’s GAI and LLM Policy.
