MHR| Preliminary vs Official Searches Results look identical

### Problem Statement:
Preliminary searches completed by staff appear identical to final client searches.
The system does not visually differentiate between internal preliminary searches and official client-facing searches.
Staff cannot reliably identify which search result should be sent to the client.
### Current State:
Staff perform preliminary searches to verify information before completing a client’s official search. They explained that these preliminary searches and the final client searches appear identical in the transaction history and in the output documents. They noted that no system indicator shows the purpose or origin of a search. Staff reported that they often accumulate several search results for the same file and must manually determine which one reflects the client‑paid version. They stated that the system offers no automated method to separate staff exploratory activity from billable client output.

### Potential Risks
- Risk of sending incorrect documents to clients: Staff may accidentally provide preliminary search results instead of the official paid search.
- Client disputes and loss of confidence: Clients question why the information provided does not reflect the final search they expected.
- Operational inefficiency: Staff spend time cross-checking timestamps, account notes, or email correspondence to confirm which search is the correct client-facing document.
- Payment validation confusion: When searches appear identical, staff cannot easily confirm which one corresponds to a paid request versus an internal check.
- Higher error rate in high-volume periods: Identical search outputs increase the likelihood of mistakes when staff handle multiple transactions in short timeframes.

### Desired Outcomes
Clear visual distinction: The system should mark preliminary searches and official client searches with clear labels or indicators in both the UI and the generated documents.
Improved traceability: Search results should display whether they were initiated by staff or by a client request.
Reduction in manual effort: Staff should be able to identify the correct output without comparing timestamps or cross-referencing multiple entries.
Accurate client delivery: The final client search should be unmistakably identifiable, reducing the chance of sending incorrect or incomplete information.
Support auditable history: Transaction history should show the context of each search so staff can defend decisions or reconstruct workflows without ambiguity.