A courts risk model’s drift panels must respect sealed-case constraints. How should monitors be configured?

Excluding sealed-case features from drift panels to respect legal constraints is correct because courts risk-model monitoring must not surface or aggregate attributes that sealed-case rules forbid. Drift configuration should track permitted features against baselines while omitting sealed fields so compliance and privacy obligations remain intact. Legal constraint-aware monitoring still provides operational signal without turning drift charts into a disclosure channel.

Summarizing sealed-case features in restricted drift panels to support legal review fails because it still keeps forbidden sealed attributes in monitoring instead of excluding them, and legal review must occur through proper legal channels not drift panels. Reporting sealed-case drift through de-identified views to respect legal constraints fails because de-identification still derives signal from sealed attributes and can reveal patterns or enable re-identification that sealing rules forbid. Restricting sealed-case drift panels to legal staff to respect legal constraints fails because access control still retains sealed features in the monitors instead of omitting them from collection, leaving them exposed in storage and exports.

Exam caveat: justice or sealed-data stems prefer exclude-restricted-features-from-monitors over summarizing sealed features in restricted panels or reporting de-identified sealed drift views or restricting sealed panels to legal staff.

Operational check: review the courts data-handling policy for sealed attributes, configure drift panels to omit those features, verify sealed fields never appear in exported monitor artifacts, and confirm permitted-feature drift still alerts owners.