Reviewing a MIRA time entry means checking whether the description and entry fields match the work, then resolving any warning in context before release. The product videos show editable narratives, an example billing-rule message, and an overlapping-time warning. Each points to a decision the timekeeper needs to make.
This guide uses MATTEROOM's official MIRA Overview, Timekeeping AI Explained, published March 12, 2026, and the iManage x MIRA Tutorial, published July 15, 2026. Screenshots retain the recorded interface and demonstration data. The examples illustrate review behavior; your firm's configured rules and current interface may differ.
Watch the source: MIRA Overview, Timekeeping AI Explained, 0:45. Recorded interface; demonstration data. Published 2026-03-12.
Read the narrative as a description of the work
At 0:36 in the overview, the narrative is editable within the grouped time-entry view. Read the whole description before changing individual words. Establish what was done, which task it relates to, and whether the description gives its reader enough context.
A useful edit makes the entry more accurate. It should not introduce a document review, conversation, conclusion, or purpose that the timekeeper cannot confirm. If the source record is too vague, return to the work context before writing a more detailed account.
For example, an entry that says only “Reviewed agreement” may need the subject of the review. If the timekeeper actually examined termination provisions to prepare client advice, that context can help explain the task. If that work did not occur, the more specific sentence would be misleading. This is an editorial example, not a transcription of the demo or a prescribed billing description.
Watch the source: MIRA Overview, Timekeeping AI Explained, 0:36. Recorded interface; demonstration data. Published 2026-03-12.
Interpret the demonstrated billing-rule warning
At 0:45 in the overview, the screen shows feedback on the word “Researched.” The same view shows a suggested wording change. This is an example of a rule applied within the demonstration, rather than a general rule that legal research cannot be billed.
Before responding, establish which instruction applies to the matter and what it restricts. A wording requirement and a restriction on the underlying activity call for different decisions. Changing a verb cannot make disallowed work allowable, and replacing a flagged word with a synonym can leave the real issue unresolved.
What the reviewer finds | Appropriate next step |
Accurate work described too vaguely | Add truthful context that explains the task. |
A wording restriction under the applicable instructions | Use an accurate description that satisfies the requirement. |
A restriction on the underlying work | Determine the correct billing treatment under the firm's process. |
A rule that appears inapplicable or unclear | Ask the responsible billing contact to clarify before release. |
Keep the explanation connected to the work. An entry that sounds more polished can still describe the wrong task or apply the wrong billing treatment. The outside counsel guidelines guide explains the broader relationship between client instructions, descriptions, and codes.
Investigate the overlapping-time warning
The same 0:45 frame displays an overlapping-time warning with time ranges. Treat that message as a prompt to compare the underlying periods and activities.
Begin by establishing what actually happened. Two source records might describe the same session, a timer may have continued during another task, or a recorded period may contain separate activities. The warning alone does not settle the correct duration.
Question | What to compare |
Do the records describe one task? | The work context, time ranges, and associated matter. |
Did the task change during the period? | The sequence of work and the duration attributable to each task. |
Is some of the time unrelated or inactive? | The recorded period against the timekeeper's knowledge of the work. |
Correct the entry to reflect the work and avoid counting the same time twice. The video demonstrates a visible warning; it does not establish that every overlap is automatically blocked or resolved. For the wider topic, see duplicate and overlapping legal time.
Check the matter, duration, and codes together
At 2:39 in the iManage tutorial, the Time Entry dialog places the narrative alongside duration, billable selection, and task/activity codes. Use that view to check whether the fields tell a consistent story.
A clear narrative can still be assigned to the wrong matter. An appropriate code can still accompany an inaccurate duration. Review the entry as a whole before saving it, particularly after changing the task description or billing treatment.
The codes in the demonstration are examples. Select codes under the scheme and instructions used for the relevant matter, and ask for clarification where the classification is uncertain. The legal billing codes guide provides background on the separate roles of tasks and activities.
Watch the source: iManage x MIRA Tutorial, 2:39. Recorded interface; demonstration data. Published 2026-07-15.
Use a short final review before release
Finish the review by confirming the decisions that could change what the firm records or passes downstream:
The work, date, and matter are correct.
The duration reflects the work without double-counting.
The narrative is accurate and contains appropriate detail.
The billing treatment and required codes are consistent.
Relevant warnings have been resolved or clarified through the firm's process.
The tutorial later shows a release action and entries marked Released. That status does not establish client approval, billing-system acceptance, or payment. Follow the firm's separate billing checks after time-entry release.
If the same question keeps recurring, capture the underlying cause for training or configuration review: an unclear client instruction, a misleading source label, an uncertain code, or a review habit that needs attention. Do not infer an automated rule-learning feature from the demonstration. For the billing team's broader process, see reducing prebill corrections.
Bring a real review question to a MIRA demo
Ask to see a representative narrative, a configured client rule, an overlapping activity, and the steps before release.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does the demonstrated warning mean legal research is never billable?
No. The recording shows an example rule flagging wording in a narrative. Determine the actual instruction and billing treatment for the matter instead of treating that example as a universal rule.
Should I replace a flagged word with a suggested alternative?
First check the underlying work and applicable instruction. Use a suggested change only when it remains accurate and resolves the relevant issue. A wording change cannot cure an underlying billing restriction.
Does MIRA automatically resolve every overlapping time entry?
The overview shows an overlapping-time warning. It does not demonstrate automatic resolution of every overlap. Compare the activities and durations before deciding how to correct the entry.
Do these screenshots prove that an invoice will pass review?
They show time-entry review features and example warnings. Invoice acceptance depends on the complete record, applicable instructions, and the firm's downstream billing process.
