16. Finish and Maintain the Document

16.1 Run the final review in layers

First review the propositions and their support. Then review source identity and locators. Then review short forms and cross-references. Finally review typography, tables, and the exported document. This sequence avoids spending all the available time polishing a citation whose source does not support the claim.

Use the requirements sheet from chapter 2. Confirm that the final document still fits the required document type and record system. Changes late in drafting can affect length, attachments, tables, and other formal requirements.

Review layer	Question
Support	Does the source support the exact sentence now written?
Identity	Are name, court, publication, number, and date correct?
Location	Does the citation reach the actual passage in the final source version?
Status	Have relevant permission, history, and temporal questions been resolved?
Navigation	Do short forms, note references, and internal links point to the right item?
Presentation	Does the document meet the receiving instructions?
Export	Do the final PDF, attachments, and tables preserve the intended content?

16.2 Rebuild the table of authorities

A table of authorities is a navigation device for the filed document. Its page references should identify where an authority is cited in that document, not pages within the authority. Normalize full and short forms so one source does not appear under several accidental names.

Court requirement — Supreme Court documents. Rule 34.2 specifies when a table of contents and table of cited authorities are required. It also directs the table to list each page on which an authority appears rather than using “passim,” with ranges available when the authority appears on every page in the range. Read the thresholds and exceptions in the rule for the actual document.

Automatic generation reduces clerical work but still needs inspection. Check duplicate entries, missing authorities, incorrect categories, and page references after the final pagination is fixed. A table generated before a major edit is only an intermediate artifact.

16.3 Inspect the final exported file

Open the exact PDF intended for submission. Follow representative internal and external links. Inspect footnotes, long citations, page breaks, symbols, and attachments. Search for unresolved placeholders and editorial comments. Confirm that text remains selectable and readable where the submission requirements call for searchable text.

Check a quotation at a page boundary and a citation inside a table. These are common places for layout defects. If the file has been redacted, inspect the redacted copy and ensure its locators still match the brief. A successful export command does not prove the exported document is correct.

16.4 Record the final review's scope

Keep a short completion note stating which artifact was reviewed, when, by whom, and for what. If the review checked citations and links but not current legal treatment, say so. If the document changed after review, identify which checks must be repeated.

Use a version identifier or checksum when practical so the note points to a particular file. Avoid a blanket “approved” label that outlives the file it originally described.

16.5 Maintain a reference after publication

For a practice manual, course handout, or published reference, maintain an errata process and an edition history. Distinguish a correction to an erroneous statement from an update prompted by a later rule change. Readers need to know which version they hold and which version a correction affects.

A durable reference also needs an honest coverage statement. If a jurisdiction has not been checked, do not make its presence in a court directory look like a reviewed local-practice chapter. If a tool verifies identity but not treatment, keep that distinction in the interface and documentation.

Sources and convention notes

Supreme Court rules, rule 34.2. The layered review and maintenance system are Citation Code editorial practices.