What each tier includes

Each tier includes everything in the tier before it.

^* ALJ Intel, full longitudinal — available to larger active firms. Inquire.

Walk-through in 60 seconds

1. Upload the file. Choose the tier. PCL reads every page.
2. Essential: one read, one map. Listings, grid rule, RFC level, what is missing.
3. Pro+: the argument. Full RFC narrative, cross-examination bank, adversarial review. For the cases that matter.
4. Premium: the memorandum. Filing-grade, argued from both sides, with the judge’s best objections answered before the hearing starts.

Why the Blueprint, even without Case Development

Built by

A Social Security Vocational Expert. The person who wrote the analysis is the kind of witness the judge turns to at Step 5.

Who it is for

Solo SSA attorneys, non-attorney representatives (EDPNA and appointed representatives), and small firms.

What it is not

Not a case management system, not a mailbox, not legal advice. PCL flags, identifies, surfaces and queues for the representative. The representative decides.

Pricing

Not shown in this set. Ask for the current rate sheet.

1.Case map

2.Medical chronology (excerpt — 8 of 131 events)

3.Opinion evidence — supportability and consistency (20 CFR 404.1520c)

Supportability and consistency are the most important factors; relationship, specialization and other factors follow. The read is an evidence analysis flagged for representative review, not a persuasiveness determination.

4.Five-step issue outline

5.Adverse evidence — minimum pass

PCL flags 6 items of potentially adverse evidence in this record. Full rebuttal analysis is included in Pro+ and Premium and is recommended for representative review on files with this volume of adverse findings.

1. ER triage 11/2024: cooks nightly for three children (Ex. F). Resolved by dated progression, Ex. J and Ex. K.
2. Psychiatric treatment lapse 02/2025 onward (Ex. C). Financial barrier documented.
3. PT discharge "improved gait" (Ex. E). In-session improvement; testimony prepared.
4. State-agency light RFC (Ex. G). Predates the current imaging and both treating statements.
5. No EMG/NCV on file. Affects 1.15B only; the RFC path does not depend on it.
6. Semi-skilled PRW raises a transferability question at Step 5 (Ex. G).

6.What is still missing

• EMG/NCV, if the 1.15 path is pursued.
• Documentation of the 2-year duration and marginal-adjustment elements, if 12.04C is pursued.
• Client confirmation of education category and any vocational training.

Why PCL is different

Not claimed, deliberately: outcome promises, third-party security certifications, and any language support beyond English-language records. Ask and you will get a straight answer on each.

1.Representative direction and case summary

Ms. Reyes is a 52-year-old former certified nursing assistant with lumbar degenerative disc disease and radiculopathy, right-knee osteoarthritis after arthroscopy, type 2 diabetes with peripheral neuropathy, major depressive disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, chronic pain syndrome and insomnia. She last worked on 06/12/2024. The record was developed through four case-development passes between May and August 2026 and now contains two treating-source statements, current imaging, five months of psychiatric findings, a cognitive screening, and a 23-question second client interview.

PCL flags the following as the strongest path, for representative review: a sedentary residual functional capacity with a sit/stand option at will, two additional unscheduled breaks, manipulative limits, no overhead reaching on the right, a limitation to simple tasks without public contact, and time off task of 15 to 20 percent. At that capacity Ms. Reyes cannot perform her past work. At Step 5, with skills that do not transfer, Medical-Vocational Rule 201.14 (disabled) applies; independent of the rule, the non-exertional limitations erode the sedentary base (PCL flags the erosion factors for the representative to put to the vocational expert). Listings 1.15 and 12.04 are close and are preserved as alternative arguments with their gaps stated.

2.Procedural posture and deadlines

Age category: closely approaching advanced age (50–54) throughout the relevant period; the claimant does not reach advanced age until 03/2029, after the date last insured, so no borderline-age situation arises. Education: high school graduate, no post-secondary training. No prior application. No substance use documented. No return to work after onset.

3.Medical chronology

32 of 131 dated events. SR = self-report; CF = clinical finding; OT = other. Undated records are excluded from the chronology arithmetic.

Current medications (Ex. A, C, D): sertraline 150 mg daily; buspirone 15 mg twice daily; gabapentin 600 mg three times daily; meloxicam 15 mg daily; metformin 1,000 mg twice daily; trazodone 50 mg at bedtime; cyclobenzaprine 10 mg as needed. Documented side effects: drowsiness and dizziness (gabapentin, trazodone), fatigue (buspirone), gastrointestinal upset (metformin). Compliance documented as consistent by the primary physician.

4.Onset analysis

The alleged onset date of 06/12/2024 is the last day of work. It is supported by the treatment record: back pain was daily and radiating by 04/2024 (Ex. A), a positive straight-leg raise was recorded a month after onset (Ex. B), and the first MRI three months after onset shows established degenerative disease rather than an acute event (Ex. F). Psychiatric treatment began 02/2024, four months before onset, which is consistent with a decline that preceded the decision to stop working rather than one caused by it. Earnings through 06/2024 exceeded substantial gainful activity; nothing after that date does. PCL identifies no evidence supporting an earlier onset and no evidence supporting a later one, and flags no onset amendment for review.

5.Evidence assessment by issue

6.Listing brief

1.15 — Disorders of the skeletal spine resulting in compromise of a nerve root

All four elements are required. PCL flags 1.15 as not met on this record, with B and D as the gaps. D is the decisive one: absent a documented need for a bilateral device, the listing cannot be met regardless of B. Preserved as an alternative argument only if the orthopedist documents a device need before 09/15/2026.

12.04 — Depressive, bipolar and related disorders

PCL flags 12.04 as not met on B and close on C. The representative's direction places the RFC path first; 12.04C is preserved only if the psychiatrist will document marginal adjustment with specificity before the evidence deadline.

1.18, 11.14, 12.06. Not met. 1.18 fails on the same D-type assistive-device element; 11.14 lacks disorganization of motor function in two extremities; 12.06 lacks B-level findings and is subsumed in the 12.04 analysis.

7.Residual functional capacity, physical

Where sources differ on a number, the narrative adopts the treating clinician's figure and notes the range. Every limitation is drawn from a clinical finding or a treating opinion; testimony is used to establish frequency, not to add a limitation no clinician supports.

8.Residual functional capacity, mental

The mental limitations are drafted under 20 CFR 404.1545(c) and SSR 85-15 on the basic mental demands of unskilled work. The off-task estimate combines the physical and mental sources set out in Section 15 and is stated as a range because the underlying frequencies are ranges.

9.Symptom evaluation under SSR 16-3p

Step one: medically determinable impairments that could reasonably be expected to produce the reported symptoms are established by imaging (K), examination findings (B, D, H, I) and psychiatric observation (C, L). Step two: the intensity, persistence and limiting effects of the symptoms are evaluated for consistency with the record as a whole. PCL identifies the following, for representative review.

The two items an adjudicator might read as inconsistent, the 11/2024 triage note on cooking and the 04/2025 physical-therapy discharge note, are each sequenced and answered in Section 13. PCL uses the vocabulary of consistency throughout; PCL identifies no item in the record, beyond the two answered in Section 13, that is inconsistent with the objective and opinion evidence.

10.Opinion evidence under 20 CFR 404.1520c

Supportability and consistency are the most important factors and are the two the decision must articulate. PCL flags for the representative that the state-agency assessment is the only opinion supporting a capacity above sedentary, and that it was formed on an incomplete record. No consultative examination was ordered; the treating statements are therefore unrebutted by any examining source.

11.Step 4, past relevant work

Only the nurse-assistant job is past relevant work: worked within the five-year relevant period that ends at adjudication (20 CFR 404.1565(a) as amended, 89 FR 27667; anchored per SSR 24-2p), at substantial gainful activity, long enough to learn. Cashier II (2004–2009) falls outside that period and PCL therefore flags it as not past relevant work; it was unskilled (SVP 2) and carries no transferable skills in any event. At the sedentary capacity in Section 7 the claimant cannot perform either job as actually performed or as generally performed in the national economy; each requires standing and walking for most of the day and, for the nursing-assistant job, medium exertion. SSR 82-62 requires specific findings on the physical and mental demands of the past work; the work-history report and testimony supply them (G, J). PCL flags no composite-job issue.

12.Step 5, grid framework and occupational-base erosion

The framework

Age 52 (closely approaching advanced age, 20 CFR 404.1563(d)); high school graduate with no recent education providing direct entry into skilled work (404.1564); past work semi-skilled (404.1568). At a sedentary capacity, Table 1 of Appendix 2 applies: Rule 201.14 (disabled) applies where skills are not transferable; Rule 201.15 (not disabled) applies where they are. The rules apply directly only where the capacity matches the full range of sedentary work; where non-exertional limitations narrow it, the rules are a framework and the vocational expert's testimony carries the finding (SSR 96-9p, SSR 83-14).

Transferability of skills

Under 20 CFR 404.1568(d), transferability is found where skills acquired in past work can be used to meet the requirements of other skilled or semi-skilled work at the same or a lesser level of skill, and is most probable among jobs using the same or similar tools and machines, the same or similar raw materials, products, processes or services. SSR 82-41 requires the adjudicator to identify the specific skills and the specific occupations to which they transfer. PCL flags, for the representative, that the nursing-assistant skills (patient transfer and positioning, bathing and toileting assistance, vital signs by hand, manual charting) were acquired in a direct-care setting and are performed physically; the sedentary occupations a vocational expert is likely to name (medical-records clerk, unit clerk, appointment clerk) use different tools (computerized records and coding systems, telephone systems), different processes (abstracting, indexing, scheduling) and a different setting (an office, not a care unit). The skills that would transfer to such work, if any, are general familiarity with medical terminology and patient contact, which are aptitudes and traits rather than skills within the meaning of SSR 82-41. The special rule of Appendix 2 §201.00(f), requiring "very little, if any, vocational adjustment" for transfer to sedentary work, applies at advanced age (55 and over) and is not available to this claimant; the argument is made under the general standard and the vocational expert is asked to identify each skill, the occupation it transfers to, and the adjustment involved.

Erosion of the sedentary base where no rule settles the result

Even if transferable skills were found, the capacity in Sections 7 and 8 significantly erodes the sedentary occupational base. Under SSR 96-9p, a sit/stand option at will that cannot be accommodated by ordinary breaks, a limitation to occasional fingering ("any significant manipulative limitation of an individual's ability to handle and work with small objects with both hands will result in a significant erosion of the unskilled sedentary occupational base"), the need for unscheduled breaks, and a limitation to simple work without public contact each narrow the base; in combination they may leave no significant number of jobs. Time off task of 15 to 20 percent exceeds the tolerance that vocational experts commonly describe (10 to 15 percent), and two additional unscheduled breaks exceed the customary break schedule. PCL flags these for cross-examination in Section 17.

13.Government-evidence rebuttal

14.Adversarial review

Produced by a second review that argues the other side from the same record. Ranked by the risk each presents. The right column is the strategy's response, added afterward.

15.Combined effects

Under 20 CFR 404.1523 the combined effect of all impairments is considered. Three interactions in this record would be missed by a single-impairment reading: gabapentin prescribed for neuropathic pain produces the dizziness that supports the hazard restriction and limits driving (A, I); chronic pain and depression independently impair concentration, and the cognitive screening documents the combined result (L); lumbar radiculopathy and peripheral neuropathy together account for both the manipulative limits and the positional intolerance (D, H). The off-task estimate in Section 8 is a combined figure: flares (40–90 minutes daily), concentration lapses (40–90 minutes) and positional breaks (20–60 minutes) total 100 to 240 minutes, 21 to 50 percent of an eight-hour day, from which the narrative adopts the conservative 15 to 20 percent stated by the treating sources.

16.Closed-period analysis

A closed period arises where disability began and ended within the adjudicated period. PCL's detection pass identifies no return to work after 06/12/2024, no earnings above substantial gainful activity, and no twelve-month interval of sustained improvement in any impairment; the imaging trend and the psychiatric findings both worsen across the period. The full analysis does not identify a closed period or a cessation issue under 20 CFR 404.1594, and flags none for representative review.

17.Vocational-expert cross-examination bank

22 questions in five categories. Each is tied to a limitation in Sections 7–8 or to the transferability argument in Section 12.

18.Claimant testimony preparation

• The cooking note. The question will come. Answer with the sequence: cooking through pain in late 2024; the attempt in February 2025 that ended after eight minutes at the counter and a pot she could not lift; the May 2026 MRI. The record already contains each element.
• Good days and bad days. Five bad and two moderate days a week, no fully good days; what a bad day looks like from morning to night. Match the interview transcript.
• Sitting and standing. Numbers, not adjectives: 20 to 25 minutes seated, 15 minutes standing, one block walking, then rest.
• The physical-therapy note. Gait improved during therapy and returned to baseline after discharge; the primary physician saw it a year later.
• The treatment lapse. The copay, the job loss, the assistance program, and that the depression did not improve during the gap.
• Medications and side effects. Drowsiness and dizziness on gabapentin, when they occur, and how they affect driving and concentration.
• What not to do. Do not estimate an off-task percentage; describe what happens. Do not characterize the case.

Client clarification questions queued (3). Whether any clinician ever recommended a cane or walker; whether any vocational or computer training was completed after high school; what "help with laundry" consists of, step by step.

19.Hearing-day plan

Requested finding. Fully favorable, onset 06/12/2024. Alternative: if the adjudicator identifies transferable skills, a finding under the framework of Rule 201.14 that the non-exertional limitations preclude a significant number of jobs.

20.Pre-Hearing Memorandum, draft

Draft 1 · AI-Projected   The only filing-grade deliverable in the ladder. The representative reviews every factual statement, verifies every citation, edits to voice, signs and files. PCL files nothing.

21.Quality gates, Q&A rounds, and next steps

Gates this document passed before release

Q&A rounds (allowance per the current rate sheet)

PCL: Sections 12, 17 and memorandum §VII regenerated. Added: the occupation is performed with computerized records and coding systems the claimant never used, in an office rather than a care unit, and its processes (abstracting, indexing, coding) share no tools or methods with bedside care; under 404.1568(d)(3) that is not the same or similar tools, processes or services. Two cross-examination questions added targeting that occupation. Diff shown; changes accepted.

PCL: Memorandum §V regenerated with 12.04C omitted; 1.15 retained as the sole alternative with the D gap stated. Section badge set to "Attorney-edited." Diff shown; changes accepted.

What happens next

1. Representative reviews Draft 1, directs changes through Q&A and edits. Each section is badged adopted, edited or added. The document becomes Draft 2, Representative-Directed.
2. Representative resolves the review gate with a written attestation and timestamp. The document becomes Final, Adopted, exported on the firm's letterhead with the adopted-state footer.
3. Memorandum filed by the representative before 09/15/2026. Late records: re-run the Case Analysis and regenerate the affected sections.

What each step does, in one line