Tier 1 · Configuration
A Sharedo tenant accretes configuration faster than it sheds it. Fields are added for one matter type and never removed; the same concept ends up stored two ways; forms grow to ask for data no one supplies. This audit measures every attribute field's fill rate over the live matter population, tests the estate against Alterspective's library of 19+ active Sharedo configuration standards, and condenses the result into a health score out of 100 whose indicator values, thresholds, and weights are printed on the report. You get a prioritised, rule-referenced clean-up backlog, not a pile of observations.
Every attribute field is measured for fill rate across the live matter population. Dead fields (0% populated) and sparse fields (under 5%) are identified and ranked: the signature of forms asking for data no one supplies.
The same concept stored two ways at once: free-text values in one field and option-set codes in another, which quietly breaks reporting and rule logic.
One field carrying true/false in some rows and 1/0 in others. Reports built on it silently under-count, and nobody notices until a number is challenged.
Logical fields configured twice under keys differing only by case or punctuation (for example reserve-amount versus ReserveAmount), so data splits across both copies and neither is complete.
Configuration is measured against our standards library of 19+ active standards, covering work types (CFG-WT), phases (CFG-PH), key dates (CFG-KD), option sets (CFG-OS), form fields (CFG-FF / CFG-FN), participants (CFG-PT), and security roles (CFG-RS). Every deviation cites a specific rule identifier you can read and challenge.
The domain score out of 100 is computed from weighted indicator ratios with published green/amber/red thresholds. The full methodology table (observed value, band, threshold, weight) is printed beside the score, so a board or a regulator can check the arithmetic.
Option-set entries referenced by no active field, duplicate entries within one set, and sets no live form still uses: dead weight that makes every configuration change riskier than it should be.
Field counts per form per work type, with each form's share of dead and sparse fields, so you can see which intake forms grew longest and how much of each one is dead weight for the fee earner filling it in.
Work types, aspects, and rules present in the tenant but referenced by nothing live.
Configuration is captured through the administration API. This tier consumes configuration only, so no matter content and no personal data leave the tenant. Fill rates are computed over the live matter population; every standards deviation cites a specific rule identifier; and the health score's indicator values, thresholds, and weights are disclosed in full on the report.
This estate scored 38.9 out of 100 on configuration health. Across 287 attribute fields measured over 30,000 matters, 189 fields (66%) carried almost no data: 95 never populated at all and 94 filled in fewer than 5% of matters. 1 field stored its values two different ways at once, and 5 logical fields were split across 10 raw keys differing only by case or punctuation.
How the score is built, in full. Each indicator is a ratio of the field estate (so a boutique practice and a national firm are scored on the same scale), banded against published green/amber thresholds, then weighted. Nothing is hidden behind the number.
| Indicator | Observed | Band | Green / amber below | Weight |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dead-field ratio | 33.1% | Amber | < 10.0% / < 40.0% | 2× |
| Mixed-representation ratio | 0.3% | Amber | < 0.0% / < 1.0% | 1.5× |
| Duplicate-field-name ratio | 1.7% | Red | < 0.0% / < 1.5% | 1× |
A shorter, higher-signal form estate; reports you can trust; a health score the board can track quarter on quarter; and a prioritised clean-up backlog scoped to specific rule identifiers, so remediation is defensible to your board and, increasingly, to a regulator.
