50. Historical Statutes: Six Completed Version Chains

50.1 Select the legal time before selecting the edition

A statute reference can describe a present text, a past text, an enactment, or a transition between texts. Start with the question being answered. “What did the provision say when the application was filed?” requires a historical version. “What amendment introduced this phrase?” requires the amending enactment. “What section number should the reader use today?” requires a current classification check. One citation may not answer all three questions.

Citation Code's house source record separates enactment date, effective date, application condition, compilation date, and research date. These fields should not be filled from one another. The title page of a compilation may identify its publication year without stating when a particular amendment began to govern. A retrieved webpage's date likewise cannot establish the law applicable to earlier conduct.

GovInfo provides distinct United States Code and Statutes at Large collections. Their collection guides supply research routes and publication metadata; the actual provision and enactment still supply the text used in an argument. United States Code collection guide; Statutes at Large collection guide.

The six packets below are wholly fictional. TRAIN Code, TRAIN Acts, and the issuing Training Assembly are learning objects. Each packet supplies the complete facts needed for its construction decision, including transition assumptions. The answers do not state an actual jurisdiction's rule of retroactivity, repeal, savings, or statutory interpretation. The house forms deliberately keep TRAIN in every legislative identifier.

50.2 Packet S1: Enacted now, effective later

Supplied packet. TRAIN Code § 14(a), 2024 edition, reads: “The custodian shall preserve each application for two years after closure.” TRAIN Act S1-2025, enacted November 20, 2025, replaces “two” with “four.” Section 3 of the act states: “This amendment takes effect on July 1, 2026, and applies to applications closed on or after that date.” Application Alder closed June 30, 2026; application Birch closed July 1. The packet stipulates no other amendments or transition provisions. The question is which text supplies each application's retention period. Section 2 of the supplied act contains the replacement instruction.

Completed analysis and citations. “Alder falls within the earlier text because it closed before the stated transition date. TRAIN Code § 14(a) (2024 ed.); TRAIN Act S1-2025 § 3 (Nov. 20, 2025). Birch falls within the amended text because it closed on the first included date. TRAIN Code § 14(a), as amended by TRAIN Act S1-2025 §§ 2–3 (Nov. 20, 2025).” The second reference identifies the amendment rather than pretending a newly compiled edition has been supplied.

The chain is 2024 §14(a) → S1-2025 §2 → effective/application condition in §3. The enactment date appears in the act reference; the prose explains the different effective and application dates. A reference merely to “§ 14 (2026)” would conceal the decisive boundary. For an internal comparison table, store Alder's governing text as version S1-A and Birch's as S1-B, but keep those editorial labels out of any purported official code identifier.

50.3 Packet S2: Renumbering without the asserted substantive change

Supplied packet. TRAIN Code § 22(b), 2021 edition, requires an inspection log to identify the inspector and inspection date. TRAIN Act S2-2023 § 8 redesignates § 22 as § 38 without changing its text, effective January 1, 2024. The official training conversion table confirms old § 22(b) corresponds to new § 38(b). A 2025 compilation prints the same wording at § 38(b). The memorandum concerns a log prepared in 2022, but a reader also needs to find the current location.

Completed historical reference: “TRAIN Code § 22(b) (2021 ed.) (redesignated as § 38(b) by TRAIN Act S2-2023 § 8).” The proposition should describe the supplied historical obligation. Add the current location in a parenthetical or separate source note: “The same supplied text appears at TRAIN Code § 38(b) (2025 ed.).” This tells the reader why two section numbers appear without calling the amendment a substantive revision.

The chain is §22(b), 2021 text → redesignation act §8 → §38(b), 2025 text. Keep the conversion table as corroborating navigation evidence, not the sole support for the earlier language. If the comparison had revealed even one changed word, the answer would need to identify that difference rather than rely on a table's broad description. A section number identifies location within a version; it does not have permanent identity independent of the version history.

50.4 Packet S3: An uncodified transition clause controls selection

Supplied packet. TRAIN Code § 60, 2022 edition, calls for paper submission. TRAIN Act S3-2024 § 2 substitutes an electronic submission requirement, effective March 1, 2024. Uncodified § 7 states: “Applications accepted before March 1, 2024 may continue under the submission procedures in force when accepted.” A later code page shows only the electronic requirement and contains a note identifying the act, but not the full transition clause. File Cedar was accepted February 28 and supplemented March 8. For this exercise, “may continue” is stipulated to permit Cedar's paper supplement. The act was enacted February 10, 2024.

Completed reference: “Cedar's paper supplement is permitted by the packet's transition provision. TRAIN Act S3-2024 § 7 (Feb. 10, 2024); TRAIN Code § 60 (2022 ed.).” A current-code citation alone would fail to reveal the textual basis of that conclusion. If discussing the new general procedure as well, cite the amended code separately and explain why Cedar follows the transition route.

The source card stores § 7 as uncodified act text, not “TRAIN Code § 60 note” unless that is the publication actually being cited. The note is a research lead; the act supplies the transition language. The chain therefore has a side branch: the new codified requirement and the uncodified transition operate in different roles. Preserve both in the issue file so a later editor does not delete the apparent historical citation as obsolete.

50.5 Packet S4: Repeal accompanied by an express savings provision

Supplied packet. TRAIN Code § 71, 2020 edition, authorizes a named administrative charge. TRAIN Act S4-2025 § 4 repeals § 71 on September 1, 2025. Section 5 states: “Charges assessed before September 1, 2025 remain collectible under former section 71.” Charge Delta was assessed August 18, 2025. Charge Elm was proposed August 18 but assessed September 3. The exercise stipulates that “assessed” means the actual assessment event and that the savings clause is the only continuation authority in the packet.

Completed analysis: “Delta falls within the express savings language. TRAIN Act S4-2025 § 5; former TRAIN Code § 71 (2020 ed.). Elm does not meet the supplied pre-September assessment condition. TRAIN Act S4-2025 §§ 4–5.” The answer is limited to this packet's continuation provision; it does not claim no other legal source could matter in a real dispute.

Use “former” when referring to the repealed section from the later vantage point. Keep the act's repeal and savings provisions together because they explain why the old text remains relevant to one file. A current database result that says “repealed” cannot by itself resolve Delta's situation. Conversely, the availability of an archived copy does not establish continued applicability to Elm. The citation must expose the transition analysis rather than leaving the reader to infer it from the year alone.

50.6 Packet S5: Two amendments, two portions, one misleading snapshot

Supplied packet. TRAIN Code § 90 has subsection (a), requiring a report within ten days, and subsection (b), requiring a named signature. TRAIN Act S5-A § 2 changes ten days to fifteen, effective May 1, 2025. TRAIN Act S5-B § 6 replaces the signature requirement with a certification requirement, effective August 1, 2025. A draft compilation labeled “2025 working text” displays both changes on June 1 with a warning that it includes future-effective amendments. Report Fir was due under the packet's rules on June 15. The original code compilation is the 2024 edition.

Completed construction: “For the June 15 report, the supplied text combines amended subsection (a) with the still-operative earlier subsection (b). TRAIN Code § 90(a), as amended by TRAIN Act S5-A § 2; TRAIN Code § 90(b) (2024 ed.); TRAIN Act S5-B § 6 (effective Aug. 1, 2025).” The final source explains why the anticipated certification language is not selected for June.

Do not assign one undifferentiated “2025 version” to the entire section. The version ledger needs effective intervals at subsection level. A useful row records 90(a): May 1 onward, fifteen days and a separate row records 90(b): before Aug. 1, signature. The working compilation is retained as a navigation aid with its future-text warning. It is not presented as proof that all displayed text governed when downloaded. This example tests the difference between document currency and provision applicability.

50.7 Packet S6: A correction changes the source record

Supplied packet. TRAIN Act S6-2026 was published in TRAIN Acts volume 12 at page 200. Section 4 initially prints a cross-reference to § 18(c). The issuing Training Assembly published correction COR-S6 on April 12, 2026, identifying that reference as § 18(e). The packet supplies a corrected official compilation at volume 12, page 202, and stipulates that it is the assembly's corrected text. A memorandum prepared April 15 uses the cross-reference to locate a reporting definition.

Completed current-source reference: “TRAIN Act S6-2026 § 4, 12 TRAIN Acts 200, 202 (corrected Apr. 12, 2026).” If explaining why an earlier memorandum used subsection (c), cite “Correction COR-S6, at 1 (Apr. 12, 2026)” separately and identify the superseded printing. The source record stores the original and corrected files, their acquisition dates, and the exact changed character. The short form can be “TRAIN Act S6-2026 § 4” after the correction has been disclosed.

The packet does not ask the writer to decide a real jurisdiction's legal power to correct enacted text or the correction's retroactive effect. Those would require additional authority. It asks which supplied publication the April 15 memorandum actually uses and how to describe the change honestly. Distinguishing a source correction from a substantive legislative amendment is part of that answer; neither label should be assigned merely because two files differ.

50.8 Build a version chain another reader can reproduce

For each statutory proposition, assemble a compact chain containing the earlier text, every material intervening change, and the provision selecting the relevant time. Record the exact language changed rather than writing only “amended.” A chain that says “§ 90 amended twice” is inadequate when one amendment affects timing and the other affects certification. The reviewer needs the changed subsection, the source of the change, and the date or condition that makes it relevant.

The final citation can be shorter than this working chain. The research record carries the detail so the rendered reference remains defensible. When citing a current code for a historical proposition, explain why that publication accurately represents the relevant historical text or supply the historical enactment instead. When the question turns on a transition clause, the clause belongs in the reader-facing support, not merely in an internal note.

An efficient final audit uses two questions: “Which event in the facts selects this version?” and “Which supplied text authorizes that selection?” S1 uses closure date; S3 uses acceptance date; S4 uses assessment date. Those are different factual variables. A generic “date of case” field would lose the distinction. If either question remains unanswered, identify the missing source or fact. A complete-looking statutory citation cannot cure an unresolved applicability question.