Repository navigation
Improve ability to find the right filing codes #94
Description
Activity
- changed the title
[-]Better / faster Spell comparison for close code names[/-][+]Improve ability to find the right filing codes[/+]on Aug 17, 2026 In addition to these ideas (basically sound alike/common typo catching) I think we can offer more ways to do code lookup - one thing is just searching w/o limit on the case category and even court, since it's not intuitive which court to choose if you're trying to get a "divorce" in Cook county, e.g.: need to pick Cook:DR1 as the court, and then Case Category of General, and then Dissolution of Marriage.
It's a finite list and I don't think we need AI to map this, but we should build some indices that help with fast keyword matching with translation for obscure court terms for various things. (maybe also worth doing some fast semantic matching - not an LLM, just FAISS or similar)
I think it would also be good to build an annotated code index for each state. This would be a deduplicated list of all filing types, case categories, etc, as there aren't that many unique ones even if technically they can be different in different courts, with a short sentence or two describing when it's the right code for a specific kind of filing. This would take some initial building, but that could be AI-supported and human validated; the ongoing maintenance burden would be relatively light for actually heavily used filing codes, but it would exist for rarer cases. I think even 80% coverage would be very useful though.
Reacted by Bryce WilleyFor what it's worth, there are currently endpoints that let you search across all case types and case categories. I made it primarily as a way for interview authors to better understand the codes available that their interview might have to deal with, so could be tweaked to be used as a end-user facing thing.
https://apps-dev.suffolklitlab.org/run/EFSPIntegration/codes_interview/#/2
Reacted by Quinten SteenhuisVermont feedback — Kris, September 24, 2026: find filing types for the Small Claims Answer package
Kris could not identify filing types for Disclosure of Exempt Income, Fee waiver, or Financial Disclosure. There was no apparent “Other” choice, although “Document” was offered. The test accidentally began with Start a new case while uploading an Answer, so investigate both discoverability and whether that branch produced an inappropriate list; do not assume the listed types were the correct subsequent-filing catalog.
This supplies a concrete Vermont use case for the annotated index/aliases discussed above, not another generic search issue.
Current code / scope
Static review at
maincommitc2fd52b2d437e64644b7878a6c2c7dd9c3770c34: organize_documents.html requires a filing type per document, while extraction-review.js loads filing choices using court, category, case type, and the new/existing-case branch. No live Vermont catalog mapping was validated during this review.Additional acceptance criteria
- Have a Vermont subject-matter reviewer validate the available court filing type(s) for each of the three named forms in the supported Small Claims Answer workflow. Record the court/case/branch scope and mapping source; do not invent codes or infer them solely from similar labels.
- Let filers discover valid choices using familiar form names and common aliases, even when the court's formal label differs. Show the official label and a short explanation alongside the familiar name where useful.
- Explain whether the actual court option “Document” is appropriate as a fallback in this context. Do not add a fictional “Other” submission value or imply that every form can safely use “Document.”
- When there is no verified match, show a clear next step/help resource and preserve the uploaded document rather than silently assigning a code.
- Recommendations remain overridable with other valid court choices. Broader searches must not permit submitting a code invalid for the selected court, case type, or new/existing branch.
- Add fixtures/tests for all three form names, an unmatched form, different court/case availability, and the mistaken-new-case Answer scenario. After correcting the branch, refresh choices and reject or clear incompatible saved codes with an explanation.
Implementation suggestion
Extend the existing code-discovery/index work with human-validated Vermont form-name aliases and short annotations, filtering final selections against the current court catalog. Reuse the already-discussed cross-category lookup facilities for discovery without weakening submission validation.
Related: #74 for contextual filing-type help; #79 for waiver paperwork versus payment selection; the navigation/mismatched-case-path follow-up will cover correcting the initial new/existing choice.
- marked Let someone find the right codes for their document #256 as a duplicate of this issue
on Sep 29, 2026 Vermont filing code findings & branch analysis (Small Claims Answer & fee waiver)
We investigated the live Vermont Tyler catalog via the EFSP API across all 14 Vermont Superior Court county units (
sc:chittendon,sc:washington,sc:rutland,sc:addison, etc.) using test environment credentials, cross-referencing against the court PDF forms incourt_forms/VT/andform_code_crosswalk.json.
1. Can a fee waiver be filed when starting a new case?
Yes. A fee waiver can be filed at the time a filer starts a new case—it does not need to be a separate subsequent filing.
- Court filing code:
7633 - Official Tyler label:
Application to Waive Filing and Service Fees - Court catalog availability: Valid in both initial (
initial=true) and subsequent (initial=false) catalogs across all Vermont Superior Court units. - Submission architecture: Under Tyler / ECF standards, the fee waiver application (VT Form 600-00228) is uploaded as an accompanying document/filing entry within the same submission envelope as the initiating complaint. At the payment step, the filer selects the court's "Waiver" payment account (
WV), which sets the upfront filing fee to $0.00 while the application is queued for judicial review.
Why Kris had trouble finding the fee waiver
The issue was purely a naming / alias mismatch:
- The paper form is titled Form 600-00228 ("Application to Waive Filing Fees and Service Costs"), and filers look for "Fee waiver".
- Tyler's official label is indexed under "A":
Application to Waive Filing and Service Fees(code7633). - A basic search for
"fee waiver"without stemming (waiv*) or alias mapping fails to match"Waive Filing and Service Fees".
2. Why Disclosure of Exempt Income and Financial Disclosure were missing
The blocker for the other two forms in Kris's test was the branch selection ("Start a new case" vs. "Existing case"):
Kris was uploading a Small Claims Answer package, but the flow accidentally began under Start a new case (
initial=true). In the Vermont Tyler Small Claims catalog (category7, e.g. case types7232,7233,13867,13909):- Initial catalog (
initial=true): 110 filing types. - Subsequent catalog (
initial=false): 255 filing types.
Both disclosure forms exist only in the subsequent filing catalog (
initial=false):- Disclosure of Exempt Income (Form 100-00128):
- Tyler code:
12847 - Catalog name:
Small Claims - Disclosure of Exempt Income - Available in
initial=true?: ❌ No. Restricted strictly toinitial=false.
- Tyler code:
- Financial Disclosure (Form 100-00127):
- Tyler code:
12848 - Catalog name:
Small Claims - Financial Disclosure Affidavit - (Note: Tyler also provides
7537: Motion for Financial Disclosure - Small Claims (postjudgment fee required)for post-judgment motions). - Available in
initial=true?: ❌ No. Restricted strictly toinitial=false.
- Tyler code:
3. Would a code-search interface have solved Kris's problem?
Not on its own:
- Scoped code search: If the search is scoped to the filer's active path (
initial=true), searching for "Disclosure of Exempt Income" or "Financial Disclosure" would return zero results, because neither code exists in the initial Small Claims catalog. - Unscoped / global code search: If the search queries across all branches and returns
12847or12848, selecting them on the "Start a new case" branch will cause Tyler EFM schema validation to reject the envelope upon submission. - Falling back to "Document" (
7804) creates confidentiality risks:- Tyler codes
12847,12848, and7633are configured in Vermont with default document security typeConfidential(6025). - Fallback code
7804: Documentdefaults toPublic(12725). UsingDocumentfor financial disclosures or fee waivers risks exposing sensitive benefit and income information in public court records.
- Tyler codes
4. Verified Vermont Small Claims Answer & waiver mapping summary
State form Tyler code Official Tyler catalog name Allowed timing / branch Document security Form 600-00228 (Fee waiver) 7633Application to Waive Filing and Service FeesBoth initialandsubsequent6025(Confidential)Form 100-00128 (Exempt income) 12847Small Claims - Disclosure of Exempt Incomesubsequentonly6025(Confidential)Form 100-00127 (Financial disclosure) 12848Small Claims - Financial Disclosure Affidavitsubsequentonly6025(Confidential)Small Claims Answer 7602760376047631Small Claims Answer AdmittedSmall Claims Answer Admitted - InstallmentsSmall Claims Answer DeniedAnswerBoth initialandsubsequent
(also7628: Amended Answerin subsequent)12725(Public)
5. Recommended design directions
- Answer & intent detection / path correction: When an uploaded document matches an Answer or responsive pleading, prompt the filer to switch to "File into an existing case" instead of stranding them in "Start a new case".
- Form number & alias indexing: Add aliases mapping Vermont form numbers (
100-00128,100-00127,600-00228) and colloquial terms ("Fee waiver") to their Tyler codes. - Cross-branch awareness: If broader search suggests a code only valid in the other branch, the UI should offer to transition the case branch rather than either hiding the code or allowing an invalid filing.
- Court filing code:
Resolved in #282
http://blog.notdot.net/2010/07/Damn-Cool-Algorithms-Levenshtein-Automata
https://norvig.com/spell-correct.html