Citation Code Compatibility Desk

Original decision tables and source breakdowns • Research date: October 8, 2026

This desk answers a practical question: which parts of a prepared citation must change when the document moves to a particular recipient? It connects Citation Code's construction chapters to selected official instructions. Its arrangement, explanations, training packets, and comparisons are original. The receiving instructions are attributed to the institutions that issued them. A court's express reference to another manual remains visible here because identifying that instruction is necessary to describe the court's practice accurately.

Three labels keep the comparisons usable. House default means Citation Code's editorial choice where the recipient leaves the matter open. Receiving requirement means the cited provision addresses the identified recipient and document. Official guidance means an institution recommends or demonstrates a practice; the recommendation is not silently converted into a universal filing command. A rule about an opinion's publication style is not automatically a rule about an advocate's brief. A rule permitting citation is not automatically a declaration of precedential weight.

Read each table horizontally. The source condition identifies what must be known; the construction decision identifies the edit; the final column identifies the error that the edit prevents. The examples test individual decisions, not complete filing compliance. Dates below describe inspected versions. California pages identified as indexed evidence were read in the search service's rendition of the official page because direct opening failed. They remain useful research leads, with that access limitation preserved.

Training convention. Every TRAIN-… object, named training party, quotation, procedural event, and coordinate mapping supplied in this desk is fictional. No training opinion receives an invented real reporter citation. Actual decisions are identified only where an official source was inspected. Those real citations demonstrate source identity and construction, not a claim that the decision supports an unspecified legal proposition. Source-specific examples apply the particular instruction discussed; they do not certify compliance with an entire external manual.

The accompanying research source ledger records URLs, inspected provisions, versions, limitations, and proposed profile changes. Cross-references to chapters 41–48 identify existing house decisions. For construction of source objects, including separate opinions and historical versions, use chapters 49–56.

CD01. Decide who controls the construction

A source record can travel among a research memorandum, a classroom assignment, a journal submission, and a filed brief. The underlying identity should survive that travel. The presentation contract may change. Record the recipient before editing punctuation: “California state-court brief; selected California Style Manual option” is a useful instruction; “legal style” is not.

Receiving situation	Inspected official direction	Relationship to the house default	Concrete decision for a prepared document
California court filing	Rule 1.200 permits either the California Style Manual or The Bluebook, consistently within the document.	A named-system choice, not an invitation to substitute any house system.	Record the chosen option before converting the first citation. Do not select one option for cases and another for statutes.
Washington filing within GR 14	GR 14(d) incorporates the prescribed format; Appendix 1, effective September 1, 2026, names Bluebook twentieth edition with exceptions.	The specified edition and local exceptions matter.	Consult the clean current appendix; retain its own reporter and case-name instructions even if a generic template differs.
Florida material within Rule 9.800	Subdivision (p) routes otherwise uncovered citations to the latest Bluebook, then the Florida Style Manual for remaining gaps.	The source hierarchy displaces a conflicting house fallback.	First determine whether Rule 9.800 itself supplies the form. Record the external source needed for any unresolved class.
Colorado Court of Appeals brief	Its November 13, 2025 policy controls conflicts and encourages Bluebook consultation for uncovered authorities.	A controlling local policy plus a recommendation for gaps.	Apply the policy's record forms directly; do not describe the recommendation as a universal mandate.
Ohio Supreme Court opinion or proposed opinion style	The court follows its Writing Manual; its gateway recommends Parts I–II to other courts and lawyers.	Opinion practice and recommended practitioner guidance have different scopes.	Label a comparison “Ohio manual treatment,” then check the actual filing rule before describing it as compulsory.
Motion practice before New York Justice Aaron D. Maslow	Part rule C11 requires the Law Reporting Bureau manual.	A concrete judicial-part instruction, not a statewide inference from one judge's page.	Save the assigned part with the style selection; a later reassignment requires a fresh receiving check.
Internal research memorandum with no specified recipient style	No receiving instruction is stipulated in this training situation.	House defaults govern the exercise.	Use explicit locators, distinctive names, and complete range endpoints without claiming court approval.

Sources: California Rule 1.200, indexed official text; Washington GR 14 and current Appendix 1; Florida Rule 9.800(p); Colorado policy, page 2; Ohio manual gateway; Maslow part rule C11.

Worked choice. The fictional research team has drafted a memorandum using Citation Code. Counsel then asks for a California filing using the California Style Manual option. The team should preserve its source ledger, verified passages, and proposition-to-source map. It should create a separate rendering profile for that filing. An editor who merely moves years in case citations has completed one conversion operation, not the whole assignment. The remaining fields include source-class treatment, short forms, quotation presentation, and the court's separate brief rules.

Edition choice. “Latest” and “twentieth edition” are different instructions. A software menu should not normalize both into a setting named “current Bluebook.” Retain the issuing text's edition instruction in the working record. This desk does not reproduce the external manual's contents; an uncovered problem remains an identified consultation task. That is more useful than a confident-looking substitute whose compatibility has never been established.

Construction diagram. The following is Citation Code's original decision sequence, not a court-prescribed workflow:

Identify recipient + document + filing date
                 |
       Find an applicable instruction
          /                    \
  instruction found          no instruction found
          |                    |
 apply its scope, choice,   use house default;
 edition, and exceptions   record unresolved coverage
          \                    /
       preserve source identity and passage

CD02. Distinguish an assigned citation from an address on a website

The characters in a neutral citation are evidence about the issuing system. They are not a decorative alternative to a reporter. In a training file, a URL ending in decision-28.pdf does not establish a neutral number ending in 28. An identifier must come from the issuing source or a verified official record. Preserve its suffixes, spacing, and court component before applying any house typography.

Illinois Rule 6 requires assigned public-domain citations for the covered cases filed on or after July 1, 2011 and qualifying earlier cases; appropriate paragraph pinpoints accompany them. Its commentary distinguishes subsequent-opinion suffixes and the -U order designation. Regional parallels are optional. These are different questions from permission to use a particular order. Illinois Supreme Court Rule 6 and commentary.

Object actually inspected	Identity construction	Pinpoint construction	Decision the editor must make
Official Illinois opinion titled People v. Castleberry	People v. Castleberry, 2015 IL 116916	¶ 1 identifies the opening opinion paragraph.	Copy the assigned identifier; do not turn docket 116916 into a reporter page.
The same opinion's cover sheet	Its docket is 116916; filing date is November 19, 2015.	Cover-sheet metadata has no need for an invented opinion paragraph.	Use the cover for identity, then open the numbered opinion for substantive pinpoints.
Official Ohio opinion titled Brandt v. Pompa	Brandt v. Pompa, 2022-Ohio-4525	Use the paragraph belonging to the writing actually discussed.	Preserve the WebCite and distinguish majority and separate writing.
Fictional file TRAIN-N-31, downloaded from an archive	No assigned neutral citation is stipulated.	slip op. at 6, if the supplied slip opinion labels page 6.	Keep the training docket/source identifier; do not invent a real jurisdiction's neutral syntax.
Fictional later version TRAIN-N-31-R	A revised training document, with revision date stated.	Recheck its own page or paragraph.	A similar filename cannot establish that locators survived revision.
Illinois order carrying an actual -U designation	Retain the complete official identifier.	Preserve the issuing document's numbered paragraphs.	Run a separate citation-permission check; removing the suffix cannot change status.

Actual identity sources: official Castleberry opinion, cover and paragraph 1; official Brandt opinion. Ohio's inspected manual uses an available WebCite and paragraph pinpoints for its Supreme Court cases. Ohio Writing Manual § 1.1(A)(1).

The complete Castleberry identity-only example is People v. Castleberry, 2015 IL 116916. To direct a reader to the opening statement of the opinion, the source-specific example becomes People v. Castleberry, 2015 IL 116916, ¶ 1. Neither example asserts that paragraph 1 resolves an unstated issue in a later case. The added paragraph is an address, not a conclusion about relevance or present precedential force.

Breakdown. Read 2015 IL 116916, ¶ 1 as four pieces: decision-year component, court designator, assigned decision identifier, and requested paragraph. Read a -U or later-opinion suffix as part of the identity where the issuing system assigns it. A paragraph number belongs after the identifier; it cannot replace the identifier because thousands of documents contain paragraph 1.

Repair exercise. A draft reads “Castleberry, No. 116916, at 1.” The source packet includes the official opinion and asks for the opening paragraph under Illinois Rule 6. Replace the draft with the assigned citation and paragraph shown above. The original draft confuses three things: the docket, an unidentified page, and the opening opinion paragraph. It may still be searchable, but searchability does not make it the instructed construction.

For the fictional revised file, make a different repair. If paragraph 18 became paragraph 20, change the locator only after reading the revised text. Preserve the old locator in the research history so a collaborator can explain why a previously correct draft changed. The final citation identifies the chosen version; the ledger explains the transition.

CD03. Select parallel addresses according to the receiving instruction

A parallel citation identifies another publication of the same decision. It is not subsequent history and does not mean that the second source is an additional holding. Keep the parallel-address list separate from the procedural-history list. The former contains equivalent publications; the latter contains distinct judicial acts. A source manager that stores both in one undifferentiated string will eventually produce a misleading citation.

Under CPLR 5529(e), New York decisions use available official reports; other decisions use available official reports and the National Reporter System if reported there. The fallback is the most available source when neither route exists. CPLR 5529(e). This differs from the current Washington selection described below and from Illinois's optional regional parallels. A general claim that “parallel citations are obsolete” would therefore be inaccurate.

Verified source condition	Receiving instruction or house position	Construction decision	What remains unchanged
Illinois decision with assigned public-domain citation	Illinois Rule 6	Keep the assigned citation; an additional reporter address is optional.	The decision, writing, paragraph, and source version.
Washington decision in Washington official reports	Washington Appendix 1, exception 9, effective September 1, 2026	Select the official report address.	The proposition still requires a verified pinpoint in the selected source.
Non-Washington decision in a regional reporter	Same Washington exception	Select the regional reporter address.	The issuing court and decision identity do not become Washington authorities.
Non-New York decision in both official reports and the National Reporter System	CPLR 5529(e), within its scope	Supply both required publication addresses.	A single judicial decision remains a single authority.
California Style Manual presentation discussed by the First District	Official practice guidance says a parallel is unnecessary.	Do not add a parallel merely because another jurisdiction demands one.	Rule 1.200's document-wide style choice and other receiving instructions still matter.
Research memorandum with no receiving direction	House default: retain verified alternatives in the ledger; display those needed for identification and access.	Select a readable primary address and explain any useful alternative.	The ledger preserves all verified addresses for later conversion.

Sources: Illinois Rule 6; Washington Appendix 1, exception 9; California First District practice guidance, indexed official text.

Training address map. Stipulate that the fictional decision TRAIN-PAR-7 appears in a court's official training volume at page 80 and a separate training publisher's volume at page 210. The quoted sentence appears at official page 84 and alternate page 215. The identity map therefore contains official start 80 / pinpoint 84 and alternate start 210 / pinpoint 215. It does not contain alternate pinpoint 84. Even where a receiving instruction asks for both addresses, it cannot make those pagination systems interchangeable.

A complete house training reference is Marlow v. Harbor Archive, TRAIN-PAR-7, official training text at 84 (Training Review Panel Mar. 2, 2026). If the exercise instructs both source addresses, write: Marlow v. Harbor Archive, TRAIN-PAR-7, official training text at 84, alternate training text at 215 (Training Review Panel Mar. 2, 2026). These are deliberately descriptive training coordinates, not invented legal reporters. They show the work necessary before a real parallel can be supplied.

History variant. Suppose the same packet also contains an order dated April 8 denying reconsideration. That order is not the second publication of the March opinion. Its identity, date, and operative language require a separate record. Adding it after the two publication addresses without a history explanation would hide the distinction. The editor should decide whether that history matters to the proposition and then use an accurate relation, rather than letting a citation export append every linked document.

The Washington change also illustrates why an old brief is not a style source for a new filing. An earlier brief may correctly reflect the earlier instruction. Copying its address pattern after an effective amendment can introduce an unnecessary or incorrect construction. Keep the authority record reusable; replace only the recipient-specific selection logic.

CD04. Preserve the case identity while editing its displayed name

House case names retain the distinctive party information needed to distinguish authorities. They may omit generic business suffixes when doing so creates no ambiguity. That permission is an editorial default, not authority to overwrite an official citation title required by the recipient. Keep at least three fields in a working record: full caption, verified citation title, and local short name. One field cannot reliably perform all three jobs.

For reported New York cases, the Law Reporting Bureau points users to its electronic citation title rather than a conflicting printed table-of-cases title. Washington's current appendix directs use of the first official-caption case name when adversary and nonadversary names coexist, and restricts substitution of organizational initials in specified settings. New York Style Manual § 2.1(a)(1); Washington Appendix 1, exceptions 3 and 8.

Supplied identity problem	House construction	Receiving-sensitive adjustment	Complete training repair or decision
Two training parties are Harbor Archive, Inc. and Harbor Archive, LLC	Retain the distinguishing suffixes.	An official citation title may resolve the exact displayed spelling.	Harbor Archive, Inc. v. Harbor Archive, LLC, No. TRAIN-NAME-1, slip op. at 4 (Training Review Panel Feb. 3, 2026).
The only organizational name in the source is North Valley Records Association	Do not invent an unexplained acronym.	Washington's initials instruction independently matters.	Use North Valley Records Association in the first reference; create a later abbreviation only when the selected treatment permits it.
One training file combines “In re Harbor Register” with an adversary caption	Preserve both in the ledger while identifying the cited writing.	Washington exception 8 selects the first official-caption name.	Read the caption order; do not select whichever name is shorter.
Two appeals involve Marlow but concern different orders	Use a distinctive short name plus source identifier.	A receiving manual may permit an established shorthand, but ambiguity remains a problem.	Marlow, TRAIN-NAME-4, at 7; Marlow, TRAIN-NAME-5, at 3.
A source uses an initial to protect a person's identity	Preserve the source's protected naming form.	Separate privacy and sealing instructions may also apply.	Do not expand R. K. from another search result merely to make a citation look complete.
Actual Illinois full caption names Steven Castleberry; official citation title is People v. Castleberry	Store the full caption and citation title separately.	Use the verified source title for the demonstrated Illinois construction.	People v. Castleberry, 2015 IL 116916.

The actual caption and citation title are both visible in the official Castleberry source. Florida Rule 9.800(q) permits italicizing or underscoring case names in text and footnotes. That express presentation choice is narrower than permission to alter the name itself. Florida Rule 9.800(q).

Name collision exercise. Three fictional opinions concern Harbor Archive, Harbor Transport, and Harbor Services. A global command changing each first party to “Harbor” creates three identical short names. The repair is source-specific: Harbor Archive, TRAIN-NAME-7, at 12; Harbor Transport, TRAIN-NAME-8, at 5; and Harbor Services, TRAIN-NAME-9, at 6. The shortest unambiguous label is preferable to the shortest possible string. Keeping the training identifier in these forms makes the relationship reviewable without pretending that a real reporter has published the exercises.

Typography variant. A word processor may strip italics when copying a citation into a table, heading, or authority list. Check the displayed result after moving it. The research record should store text separately from presentation so a loss of formatting does not erase the distinction between a case title and surrounding explanation. When a recipient allows either italicization or underscoring, choose one consistent treatment instead of combining both on the same title.

The name is also an attachment point for later history. A party substitution in a later order can change the caption without changing the earlier opinion's published title. Preserve the title of the document actually cited, and explain any relation between the two matters in prose or history where relevant. A silently “updated” name can make a historically accurate citation harder to retrieve.

CD05. Rebuild short forms when citations move

House short forms favor explicit locators and distinctive names. House Id. refers only to an immediately preceding, unambiguous single-source citation unit, with the source/version retained. It does not survive an intervening source merely because the reader might infer what the writer meant. A document conversion should therefore regenerate short forms after source order and paragraph placement stabilize.

New York's manual allows bare id. for an identical immediate reference and does not use supra to shorten a subsequent citation. Ohio's manual uses a two-paragraph proximity rule for repeating the volume or WebCite. Those are distinct choices, not a shared universal definition of “recently cited.” New York Style Manual §§ 1.3(b)(2), (c); Ohio Writing Manual § 6.1.

Citation sequence supplied by the exercise	House result	Receiving comparison	Why the edit matters
TRAIN-SHORT-A at page 12, followed immediately by the same passage	Id. at 12.	New York's identical-reference option is shorter.	The house locator remains explicit even when repeated.
TRAIN-SHORT-A at page 12, then TRAIN-SHORT-B, then A at page 14	Marlow, TRAIN-SHORT-A, at 14.	Do not apply an immediate-reference device across B.	The intervening authority changes the antecedent.
One citation unit lists A and B; next sentence cites B alone	Vale, TRAIN-SHORT-B, at 9.	A recipient's own ambiguity rules still need checking.	House Id. is unavailable after the multi-source unit.
A full case citation appears four paragraphs earlier	Restore the identifying source component.	Ohio's proximity treatment expressly calls for that restoration.	The reader should not hunt through unrelated paragraphs for the address.
A chapter cites two editions of the same book	Add the edition to the short form.	Shortening cannot collapse distinct textual versions.	Vale, Register Design, 2d ed., at 31 identifies a different object from the first edition.
A draft adds a footnote containing another source immediately before an Id. note	Reassess the antecedent after the insertion.	A previous successful check does not establish the edited sequence.	Citation meaning can change without any characters changing inside Id. itself.

Complete training sequence. The source packet contains Marlow v. Harbor Archive, No. TRAIN-SHORT-A, slip op. at 12 (Training Review Panel Feb. 9, 2026). The first proposition cites that full reference. The next sentence discusses page 14 and cites Id. at 14. An editor then inserts a comparison to Vale v. Register Board, No. TRAIN-SHORT-B, slip op. at 3 (Training Review Panel Mar. 1, 2026). The previously correct Id. must become Marlow, TRAIN-SHORT-A, at 14. The new name is necessary even if the writer still has the original source open on screen.

Paragraph-distance variant. For an exercise applying the Ohio proximity instruction to an actual Supreme Court identity, the full reference is Brandt v. Pompa, 2022-Ohio-4525. When the designated source component is no longer within the permitted proximity, preserve the WebCite in the later reference. A pinpoint must be chosen from the writing actually used; this exercise does not invent one. Compare this to the house design, which already favors retaining enough identity to make a citation understandable outside its original paragraph.

Edition collision. Stipulate two fictional works: Lena Vale, Register Design 31 (1st ed. 2024), and Lena Vale, Register Design 31 (2d ed. 2026). A short form reading “Vale at 31” is insufficient in a passage comparing their language. Use Vale, Register Design, 1st ed., at 31 and Vale, Register Design, 2d ed., at 31, with the title italicized. The edition is part of the comparison's substance, not optional bibliographic decoration.

After revisions, review short forms from the reader's position. Start at each abbreviated reference and find its antecedent without using the editor's research notes. If two plausible sources remain, expand the reference. That is a construction test with a definite outcome; it is more reliable than asking whether the citation merely looks familiar.

CD06. Expose quotation changes without changing the proposition

House quotation editing marks changed letters and words with brackets, uses spaced ellipsis points for internal omissions, and preserves material qualifications. The relevant receiving differences often concern which changes need notice and where punctuation belongs. None of the inspected instructions authorizes a writer to turn a conditional statement into an unconditional one.

Ohio § 10.3 brackets an initial-capitalization change when adapting quoted text to the introductory construction. New York § 11.1(d) uses brackets for additions or modifications. Washington exception 2 permits a three-dot ellipsis for matter deleted after a sentence's final punctuation. CPLR 5529(d) requires omission indication and source attribution for quoted excerpts. Ohio manual; New York manual; Washington appendix; CPLR 5529(d).

The complete fictional source paragraph, TRAIN-QUOTE-1 paragraph 4, is: “The archive may release a duplicate when the original cannot be located. The clerk must record the search, including the rooms inspected, before release. This procedure does not authorize destruction of the original if it is later found.” All examples below refer to this supplied training text.

Intended use	Completed house construction	Receiving comparison or boundary	Construction decision
Integrate the first sentence after “states that”	The procedure states that “[t]he archive may release a duplicate when the original cannot be located.”	The inspected Ohio capitalization instruction reaches the same visible change.	Bracket the changed initial letter.
Quote the first sentence as a complete sentence	The procedure states: “The archive may release a duplicate when the original cannot be located.”	No initial letter changed.	Do not add brackets merely because the quotation follows a colon.
Omit the intermediate description of search locations	“The clerk must record the search . . . before release.”	Internal omission requires an honest indication.	Keep the timing condition; the omission concerns search detail.
Describe release permission without its condition	“The archive may release a duplicate.”	This distorts the supplied conditional statement.	Restore “when the original cannot be located,” or paraphrase the conditional accurately.
Explain what “it” refers to in the third sentence	“This procedure does not authorize destruction of the original if [the original] is later found.”	The replacement must remain visible.	Bracket the substitution; do not claim the source used the added noun phrase.
Discuss the policy as a whole	Cite paragraph 4 and explain its three separate instructions.	A prose summary is often clearer than a heavily altered quotation.	Separate release, documentation, and preservation instead of blending them into one invented sentence.

Completed citation attachment. A house example reads: The procedure permits a duplicate only under the stated condition. Harbor Training Archive, Duplicate Procedure, TRAIN-QUOTE-1, ¶ 4 (Jan. 5, 2026). If a quotation is used instead, the same source identity and paragraph follow the quotation. The citation does not cure an inaccurate excerpt; its job is to make the accuracy test possible.

Sentence-boundary variant. Suppose the writer quotes the complete first sentence and complete third sentence, omitting the second. The omission crosses a sentence boundary. Preserve the first sentence's period and visibly mark the omitted material under the selected treatment. Do not remove the period and join “located” to “This” as if the source contained one sentence. The chosen ellipsis convention may change; the source's logical separation remains part of the record.

Attribution variant. Now stipulate TRAIN-QUOTE-2, an investigator's letter quoting TRAIN-QUOTE-1. The researcher has inspected only the letter. A citation directly to the procedure would overstate access. Identify the letter and its quotation of the procedure, or obtain the underlying text. Once both are inspected, choose the source that supports the proposition being made: the procedure's contents or the investigator's description of them. Different propositions can require different citations even when the quoted words match.

CD07. Separate block layout from quotation fidelity

House practice treats 50 words as a review trigger for block presentation, subject to the recipient. That is not a claim that every court mandates a 50-word block. The inspected New York opinion manual calls for blocks at 50 words, retains quotation marks, and excepts Appellate Division memorandum decisions from blocking. Ohio generally blocks quotations longer than four lines and omits outer quotation marks. Its manual also permits carefully limited “cleaned up” treatment, used sparingly. New York Style Manual § 11.1(a); Ohio Writing Manual §§ 10.5, 6.6(F).

Supplied quotation situation	House decision	Receiving-sensitive decision	Result to inspect in the exported page
A 54-word training passage	Review for a block because it crosses the house trigger.	Apply the selected recipient's length and layout rule.	A block remains a quotation with the same words and source.
A 38-word passage becomes five lines in a narrow layout	House word count alone does not resolve recipient treatment.	Ohio's line-based instruction presents a different trigger.	Reassess after font size and margins are final.
New York opinion-style block	Use the selected opinion treatment when applicable.	Preserve the outer quotation marks required by that treatment.	A generic stylesheet must not remove them automatically.
Ohio manual-style block	Use the selected Ohio treatment.	Outer quotation marks differ from New York treatment.	Nested quoted words must remain distinguishable.
The source contains brackets inserted by an earlier writer	Preserve the provenance of the brackets.	A permitted cleanup convention needs its own scoped decision.	Do not make earlier editorial language look like the original speaker's words.
A quotation contains a material exception in parentheses	Retain or accurately paraphrase the exception.	Readability permission does not authorize substantive deletion.	The final proposition must remain conditional where the source is conditional.
A source citation is omitted from quoted text	Identify the omission using the selected convention.	A narrow notice may be more informative than a broad cleanup label.	The attribution chain remains discoverable.

Training passage. The following 54-word passage is original fictional text from TRAIN-BLOCK-1 paragraph 6:

The archive keeps one register for original documents and a separate register for replacement copies. Each entry identifies the custodian, the date received, and the shelf assigned. If the replacement later becomes unnecessary, the clerk records that event in the replacement register without changing the entry describing the original document or its historical location.

The passage contains three sentences serving different functions: register separation, entry contents, and treatment of a later event. Its layout should help the reader perceive those functions. Moving it into a block should not turn the last sentence into a caption, remove the conditional “If,” or detach the source from the text. For a New York opinion-style demonstration, retain enclosing quotation marks in the block. For an Ohio-style demonstration, retain the same text without outer quotation marks. The present Markdown block illustrates separation only; production typography must implement the selected treatment.

Cleanup decision. Stipulate another training source containing: “The panel explained that ‘a duplicate is a replacement copy’ (TRAIN-DEFINITION-2 at 3).” The house default can preserve the nested quotation and source reference, or identify a narrow omission if the internal citation is removed. A broad cleanup notice is not the house's automatic remedy. Under a recipient that permits cleanup, first identify exactly what would disappear. Removing the internal source reference changes how much attribution the reader sees; removing the word “replacement” changes the meaning. Those are not equivalent edits.

Layout test. Render the quotation at final width before deciding that a line-based trigger has or has not been reached. A manuscript column, website card, mobile view, and filed PDF can wrap the same words differently. Store the source text independently from the formatted block so reflow cannot be mistaken for a source revision. For a word-based threshold, count the quoted text consistently and retain a reproducible count in editorial notes when the boundary matters.

Shorter quotation variant. A brief may need only “separate register for replacement copies,” with the complete sentence and paragraph available through the citation. That extraction is short enough to fit in prose, but the writer still must explain what is separate from what. Quotation length does not determine whether context is adequate. The useful test is whether the selected words answer the stated question without concealing a condition, speaker, or qualification.

CD08. Translate record coordinates without changing the evidence

A litigation document can have several honest addresses: its printed page, the PDF viewer's page, a Bates identifier, an exhibit designation, and its location in an appellate appendix. The receiving instruction selects which address belongs in the filed document. It does not make the others interchangeable. Preserve a crosswalk so a reader can travel from the filed reference to the underlying item.

California Rule 8.204(a)(1)(C) calls for volume-and-page record references and equivalent specificity for electronic material. The First District suggests CT, RT, and appendix abbreviations. Colorado's policy uses electronic-folder and PDF-page coordinates, with transcript lines for a subpage reference. FRAP 28(e) distinguishes appendix pages from permitted original-record references and requires the relevant admission-event locations when admissibility is disputed. California Rule 8.204, indexed text; First District guidance, indexed text; Colorado policy, pages 3–4; FRAP 28(e), official Ninth Circuit compilation.

Complete fictional packet. TRAIN-RECORD-1 is a two-page receipt. Its second printed page has Bates stamp TRAIN-HAR-000318. In the exercise's California clerk's transcript it appears in volume 2 at page 187. In the Colorado exercise's CF folder it appears at PDF page 205. In the federal exercise's joint appendix it appears at A143. TRAIN-RECORD-2 is a March 4, 2026 hearing transcript. Printed page 42 lines 7–12 map to California reporter's transcript volume 1 page 42 and Colorado transcript PDF page 48. These are alternative training packages, not assertions that one actual appeal has three incompatible records.

Question supported by the fictional item	House research address	Applied receiving-coordinate example	Mapping decision
What appears on the receipt's second page?	TRAIN-RECORD-1, at 2 (TRAIN-HAR-000318)	California exercise: 2 CT 187.	Use the actual transcript volume and page, not the receipt's printed page alone.
Same receipt in the Colorado package	Same underlying item	CF, p.205.	The policy's PDF page differs from printed page 2.
Same receipt reproduced in the federal appendix	Same underlying item	J.A. A143, using the exercise's defined clear abbreviation.	Read the appendix page label rather than the PDF viewer counter.
The witness's six-line answer	TRAIN-RECORD-2, at 42:7–12	California exercise: 1 RT 42:7–12.	Retain the transcript volume and line range.
Same answer in the Colorado transcript folder	Same testimony	TR-3/4/26, p.48:7–12.	The exercise stipulates retained line numbering despite the PDF-page offset.
A separately sealed declaration	TRAIN-RECORD-3, ¶ 5, with restricted storage noted	Colorado exercise: Seal.CF, p.19, if that is its actual folder/page mapping.	A locator does not authorize publication of sealed contents.
A physical exhibit in the second envelope	TRAIN-EX-6, physical object	Colorado exercise: Env2, Ex-6.	A physical object does not acquire a PDF page because the exhibit list has one.

The example abbreviations apply the inspected coordinate instructions; the fictional packet supplies all numbers. A filed reference must use the actual record's organization. In particular, J.A. is a defined training abbreviation, not a claim that FRAP 28 imposes those exact letters in every circuit.

Admissibility variant. Stipulate that the receipt was identified at transcript page 43, offered at 44, and excluded at 45. A sentence asserting that the receipt was admitted cannot be supported by page 44 merely because counsel offered it there. The record contains three distinct events. Under the described FRAP situation, identify the relevant pages for those events; in the argument, characterize the ruling accurately. The citation-construction problem and the evidentiary assertion must be repaired together.

Crosswalk check. Open the finished appendix at A143 and confirm the Bates stamp and printed page. Then open CF page 205 in the alternative training package and perform the same check. The matching content, not arithmetic alone, establishes the mapping. A cover page inserted midway through a bundle can change later PDF offsets while leaving printed pages intact. Store offsets only as aids; validate the actual target whenever the bundle changes.

CD09. Evaluate an order's permitted use separately from its citation form

“Unpublished” can describe different systems and dates. A database's availability badge cannot replace the applicable rule. Build a status record with issuing court, decision type, issue date, publication designation, later publication action, intended purpose, and recipient. Then choose the rendering. A polished reporter citation cannot supply a missing permission analysis.

Issuing and receiving situation	Inspected rule boundary	Training decision	Information that must remain in the work record
Second Circuit summary order cited in that court	Post-January 1, 2007 orders may be cited; earlier orders have specified exceptions; summary orders lack precedential effect.	TRAIN-ORDER-1, issued in 2024, enters the permitted-use branch without being labeled binding precedent.	The actual summary-order designation, date, and intended proposition.
Fourth Circuit unpublished disposition issued before January 1, 2007	Citation is disfavored in the specified courts, with stated purposes and an additional material-issue/no-published-equivalent route.	TRAIN-ORDER-2 from 2005 cannot be treated as automatically forbidden or automatically unrestricted.	The reason for citation and the rule's conditions.
Washington Court of Appeals unpublished opinion	GR 14.1(a) permits identified nonbinding use for opinions filed on or after March 1, 2013.	TRAIN-ORDER-3 filed in 2018 needs its nonbinding status identified.	Filing date and issuing court, not just download date.
Non-Washington unpublished opinion cited in Washington	GR 14.1(b) looks to permission under the issuing jurisdiction's law.	TRAIN-ORDER-4 requires an issuing-rule check before the Washington format is applied.	Both the receiving rule and the issuing jurisdiction's permission source.
Indiana memorandum decision issued on or after January 1, 2023	Rule 65(D)(2) allows persuasive citation; the memorandum is not binding unless later designated for official publication.	TRAIN-ORDER-5 from 2024 is assessed for persuasive use and later status changes.	Issue date, current designation, and the asserted level of authority.
Texas opinion marked not for publication	Rule 47.7 distinguishes criminal cases from civil cases and the civil January 1, 2003 boundary.	TRAIN-ORDER-6 needs case type and date before selecting the rule branch.	The actual designation, civil/criminal character, and any required notation.

Sources: Second Circuit Local Rule 32.1.1(a)–(c); Fourth Circuit Local Rule 32.1; Washington GR 14.1; Indiana Rule 65; Texas Rule 47.7.

Two decisions, one party name. Stipulate that TRAIN-ORDER-5 was issued as a memorandum decision on February 6, 2024 and later officially published on March 18. A research export generated on February 8 may retain the initial status. The editor needs the later publication event before describing the decision in an October document. Conversely, a different order in the same litigation does not inherit published status merely because its party names match the published opinion.

Purpose variant. An older order offered to show a prior adjudication in the same dispute presents a different question from an order offered as general substantive authority in an unrelated case. Record the purpose in one sentence before searching the rule. “This establishes that the panel disposed of the same claim on the stated date” is distinct from “this controls the interpretation of the statute.” The first still requires the correct procedural record; the second requires a defensible claim about authority.

Construction repair. A draft calls TRAIN-ORDER-3 “controlling Washington precedent.” The supplied packet stipulates an unpublished Court of Appeals opinion filed in 2018. Repair both the description and the citation status; merely adding “unpublished” at the end leaves the false characterization in the sentence. A suitable training description is “the unpublished opinion's reasoning,” followed by an accurately identified nonbinding citation under the applicable instruction. Whether its reasoning is persuasive requires substantive analysis beyond citation form.

Source-versus-copy distinction. A decision's presence in a public database can make retrieval easier while leaving its precedential classification unchanged. A privately stored PDF can be an exact copy while triggering an additional delivery requirement. Keep those facts in separate fields. Table 10 applies the delivery rules; it should never be used to infer permission from the fact that a copy can be attached.

CD10. Distinguish a source citation, a required copy, and a record attachment

A citation identifies material. A required copy delivers it. A record attachment supplies an item within a procedural package. These functions can overlap, but satisfying one does not prove the others. In a training brief, an internet link to an order does not establish that a required copy was served, and an attached document does not establish that it belongs in the appellate record.

FRAP 32.1(b) requires filing and service of a cited federal disposition when it is unavailable in a publicly accessible electronic database. Second Circuit Local Rule 32.1.1(d) separately requires a copy for an unrepresented party. Washington GR 14.1(d) requires an appendix copy of a cited unpublished opinion from another jurisdiction. FRAP 32.1(b); Second Circuit rule; Washington rule.

Supplied situation	Citation task	Separate delivery or record task	Completed editorial disposition
TRAIN-COPY-1 is a cited federal order unavailable in a publicly accessible electronic database	Identify the actual order and locator.	Apply FRAP 32.1(b)'s copy requirement.	Mark the source record “copy required”; tie the copy to the paper in which it is cited.
TRAIN-COPY-2 is a publicly available Second Circuit summary order; an opposing party is unrepresented	Use the permitted summary-order form.	Apply the separate local service instruction.	Public availability does not close the local service task.
TRAIN-COPY-3 is another jurisdiction's unpublished opinion cited in Washington	Establish citation permission under the issuing law.	File and serve the appendix copy required by GR 14.1(d).	Keep permission evidence and delivered copy as separate entries.
TRAIN-COPY-4 is a document counsel received privately but never placed in the trial record	It can be identified in research notes.	Determine whether and how it may enter the relevant procedural record.	Do not disguise it as an appendix page merely by attaching it.
TRAIN-COPY-5 is a rule whose text the federal appellate issue requires the court to study	Cite the rule and relevant provision.	FRAP 28(f) addresses reproduction in the brief, addendum, or pamphlet.	Track the exact version reproduced, not only the title.
TRAIN-COPY-6 is an already-filed document referenced in a Maslow motion	Cite the document and precise location.	Part rule C19 addresses resubmission as a motion exhibit when outside that motion context.	A docket hyperlink alone does not perform the specified motion-record task.

The final two official instructions are FRAP 28(f) and Maslow part rules C19–C20. The latter are specific to that judicial part. They are included because they demonstrate how a precise citation can still fail to place the cited document in the expected submission context.

Matching exercise. The fictional brief cites an order entered April 2, 2026, but the attachment is the April 3 corrected order. A cover label reading “Order” conceals the mismatch. Compare docket identifier, date, version notice, and quoted text. If the argument depends on the corrected text, revise the citation and check the proposition. If it intentionally discusses the original order, attach the proper object where required and explain the later correction where material. The copy should be another instance of the cited object, not a related object with a familiar title.

Delivery ledger. For TRAIN-COPY-2, record the source URL and retrieval time, the saved copy's identity, the party requiring service, and the document package containing the reference. Completion requires actual performance by the authorized filer; an editorial checkbox cannot certify a service event that has not occurred. The book's example therefore ends with a defined task and matching criteria, not a fictional claim that papers were filed or served.

Attachment naming. Use a descriptive name such as TRAIN-COPY-1 — order entered March 12, 2026 in the training contents list. That label lets a reviewer distinguish the order from a motion, proposed order, or later judgment. A citation manager should not populate all four document types from one docket-level title. Where a page limit, redaction requirement, or restricted-access rule applies, resolve that instruction separately rather than assuming the citation rule supplies an exception.

CD11. Build the authority table from the finished document

An authority table maps a source to the pages of the submitted document where the source is cited. Those are not the source's own pinpoint pages. A case cited at source page 680 in a brief's pages 7 and 12 should route the reader to brief pages 7 and 12. Combining these two coordinate systems produces a table that looks plausible while sending the reader to nonexistent or irrelevant locations.

Supreme Court Rule 34.2 sets its applicable word/page thresholds, excludes joint appendices, and requires actual citation-page references rather than passim; a range is appropriate only when every page in it contains the citation. Texas Rule 38.1(c) calls for an alphabetical authority index with brief-page references. California Rule 8.204(a)(1)(A) separates categories of authorities. Supreme Court Rule 34.2; Texas Rule 38.1(c); California Rule 8.204, indexed text.

Finished training document evidence	Incorrect entry	Correct house mapping for the supplied evidence	Receiving-sensitive check
TRAIN-TOA-A appears on brief pages 7, 8, 9, and 10	passim	7–10	Under the described Supreme Court rule, every page in the range must contain a citation.
TRAIN-TOA-B appears on pages 7 and 10 only	7–10	7, 10	A range would falsely imply occurrences on intervening pages.
A citation on brief page 12 pinpoints source pages 114–119	114–119	12	The authority table uses document coordinates.
A short form on page 14 refers to the same source as a full citation on page 4	Two separate entries	One source entry routing to 4, 14	Resolve the short form before aggregation.
Two training decisions share a party name but have different TRAIN identifiers	One merged entry	Two separately identified authorities	Party-name equality does not establish decision identity.
A quotation and its citation move from page 18 to page 19 during layout	Stale page 18	Updated page 19	Regenerate after export, then inspect actual occurrences.
A statute and a court rule have the same numerical section label	One numeric entry	Separate source-class entries	Category and title must survive sorting.

Training build. Stipulate a final brief containing Marlow v. Archive Board, TRAIN-TOA-A, on pages 7–10, and Vale v. Archive Board, TRAIN-TOA-B, on pages 7 and 10. The first index entry can display 7–10; the second displays 7, 10. The visual difference is only a dash versus a comma, but the informational difference is two additional claimed occurrences. Complete endpoints remain the house default; do not confuse endpoint compression with permission to fill gaps.

Short-form reconciliation. A source ledger gives each authority a stable internal key. The document contains its full name, two shortened names, and one Id. reference. Resolve those occurrences to the key before generating the authority table. If the Id. antecedent is ambiguous, the indexer cannot safely choose a source based on the nearest matching name. Repair the text first. Otherwise a technically accurate index of an ambiguous citation would still conceal the underlying writing defect.

Separate-writing variant. A brief cites the majority and a dissent from the same reported case. The working record should retain the writing-level distinction so an editor can verify attribution. The authority-table display may group the case according to the receiving format, but that grouping must not erase which passages came from the dissent. A reviewer opening each routed brief page should find the attribution necessary to understand the proposition.

Threshold decision. Do not infer that a short document is exempt from every authority-table instruction merely because it falls below the Supreme Court's threshold. That threshold belongs to that rule and document category. A California brief's contents instruction is a separate source. Store the threshold with the recipient and document type; never create a global switch named “under five pages: no table.”

CD12. Preserve statutory version evidence when the display changes

The house quick form includes a version or edition component because a section number can remain stable while its text changes. Some receiving instructions use a more compact display for presently effective law. A shortened display should not cause the research record to discard the version that was inspected. The visible citation and the supporting version history perform different tasks.

Supreme Court Rule 34.5 ordinarily selects the United States Code for codified federal provisions and the Statutes at Large for provisions not classified there, with additional or alternative citations justified by relevance or necessity. Washington Appendix 1 exception 13 omits a year parenthetical for presently effective statutes or codes. Colorado's policy footnote uses the current statutory/instruction version unless an older version is intentional. Supreme Court Rule 34.5; Washington Appendix 1; Colorado policy, page 4.

Source packet and intended proposition	House research construction	Receiving-sensitive display decision	Evidence retained behind the display
A federal provision is verified as codified	Code title, section, subdivision, and inspected version	Apply the ordinary Code route in Supreme Court Rule 34.5.	The code text and relevant amendment history.
A federal enactment provision is verified as unclassified	Act identity, section, and Statutes at Large location	Apply the unclassified-provision route.	Evidence that the cited provision has not simply been missed in a classification table.
The argument concerns the original enactment's wording	Identify the enactment and the historical question	Explain the particular reason for the additional enactment citation.	The actual passage and its relation to later codification.
A presently effective Washington statutory provision is cited	Preserve the inspected version in the ledger	Apply exception 13's display instruction when within scope.	Access date, official source, and text/version inspected.
An older statutory version controls the exercise's historical question	Identify that older version explicitly	Do not run a “remove all years” replacement.	The historical effective interval and relevant later amendment.
A Colorado policy example prints a 2025 year	Treat the example year as adoption-time data	Select the version appropriate to the actual citation.	The current or intentionally historical source used by the writer.
A private publisher's annotation is the material discussed	Identify the annotation as commentary rather than statutory text	Do not use a compact statute form to hide the separate work.	Author, edition/update, locator, and publication identity.

Complete fictional version packet. TRAIN-STAT-1 contains Harbor Training Code § 8(b), 2024 edition: “The custodian records receipt within five working days.” TRAIN-STAT-2 contains the same section, 2026 edition: “The custodian records receipt within three working days.” TRAIN-ACT-3 is a fictional amendment effective July 1, 2026 replacing “five” with “three.” These are invented training texts, not claims about any real jurisdiction's deadlines.

A house citation for the first text is Harbor Training Code § 8(b) (2024 ed.; TRAIN-STAT-1). The later text is Harbor Training Code § 8(b) (2026 ed.; TRAIN-STAT-2). If the exercise asks what language appeared before July 1, the 2026 text cannot answer merely because it is easier to retrieve. If a selected recipient's compact form removes a displayed year for current law, the internal record still distinguishes these two sources. The earlier citation must not be accidentally swept into that current-law treatment.

Enactment variant. A sentence states that TRAIN-ACT-3 changed the number of working days. Its support is the amendment's operative text and effective-date provision, not just the current code's resulting wording. A separate sentence states what § 8(b) now says; that sentence uses the verified current compilation. Two related propositions justify two source objects. Combining them under one citation without checking the amendment can conceal a delayed effective date or partial application.

Historical precision. A book labeled “2026 edition” might include legislation with different effective dates. The edition label identifies the publication, not necessarily the effective interval of every provision. Record enactment, publication, compilation, and effective dates separately when the question depends on them. This is original house research design; the receiving instructions above determine only the stated presentation choices, not the substantive answer to a version question.

CD13. Distinguish publication, adoption, and effectiveness

An official PDF is not necessarily the operative text for today's document. It may be a proposal, an adopted future amendment, a redline, a historical compilation, or the current clean rule. Identify the kind of object before extracting its command. A search result that contains both deleted and inserted language can produce a sentence that was never the law in either version.

Inspected official object	Status as of October 8, 2026	Proper editorial use	Incorrect inference to reject
Washington Order 25700-A-1697, dated June 4, 2026	Adopted amendment, effective September 1, 2026	Establish adoption and effective date; compare changes carefully.	Treat every word in a text extraction of the redline as operative.
Washington clean GR 14 Appendix 1, labeled effective September 1, 2026	Current version inspected	Apply the clean text within GR 14's scope.	Use an older parallel-citation pattern because it appears in a prior brief.
Washington January 2026 proposal pages	Proposal history	Explain what was proposed, if that history matters.	Assume a proposal's exact language was adopted.
Arizona Order R-25-0060, filed August 27, 2026	Adopted, effective January 1, 2027	Track the future Rule 111(g)(2) change separately.	Describe the new procedure as already effective in October 2026.
Arizona 2014 order amending Rule 111	Historical adoption evidence	Establish the specified historical amendment only.	Treat it as a complete consolidated account of all later amendments.
Illinois Rule 6 PDF signed digitally in 2021	Rule text identifies its 2011 amendment/effective boundary	Separate the signature timestamp from the rule's operative date.	Call July 1, 2021 the neutral-citation transition date.
Ohio third-edition manual	Effective June 17, 2024, according to its current gateway	Identify the edition and the selected sections.	Treat its publication year as the decision year of every example.

Sources: Washington signed order; clean Washington appendix; Washington proposal archive; Arizona future amendment; Arizona historical order; Illinois Rule 6; Ohio edition gateway.

The future Arizona amendment permits the Supreme Court, when denying review, to prohibit persuasive citation to all or part of a memorandum decision through the described case-specific action. It is not a blanket prohibition on all memorandum decisions. Its future effective date must accompany any planning note. The inspected older Arizona order does not establish a complete operative 2026 consolidation, so this desk does not construct one by joining the two orders and assuming nothing changed between them.

Training calendar. Stipulate that a fictional filing is due December 15, 2026 and a second filing is due February 10, 2027. A rule adopted in August with a January 1 effective date belongs in the first file's upcoming-change note and the second file's fresh operative-rule check. The second filing still needs the current rule, any intervening order, and any case-specific direction. A scheduled reminder is useful; it is not evidence that the future rule remains unchanged when the reminder fires.

Redline repair. A parser reads “opinions briefs pleadings” from a struck-and-inserted phrase and writes an overbroad summary. Resolve the presentation by reading the clean text or the visual redline, then identify which words survived. Do not guess from word order in extracted text. In the Washington example, the clean current appendix supplies a decisive cross-check. In a case with no clean consolidation, preserve the uncertainty and read the amendment's markup before drafting a current-rule statement.

Source dating. A server upload date, search-engine “published” label, PDF signature, court filing date, and effective date can all differ legitimately. Give each a named field. The research date in this desk means the selected sources were checked on that date; it does not imply that every linked court rule was enacted then or that all future changes have been anticipated. A career-long reference earns continued usefulness through versioned updates, not by assigning permanent currency to one research pass.

CD14. Apply a complete, bounded conversion to a real source identity

The official United States Reports source identifies Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009), decided May 18, 2009. The following examples use that identity to show arrangement differences. They do not quote a holding, assign a substantive proposition to a pinpoint, or claim that one example supplies every requirement of a recipient. Official GovInfo source and decision PDF.

Selected construction task	Completed example or edit	Basis and scope	What the editor still checks
Citation Code identity-only reference	Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009).	House reported-case arrangement.	Add a verified pinpoint when the sentence asserts a particular proposition.
California Style Manual arrangement demonstrated by First District guidance	Ashcroft v. Iqbal (2009) 556 U.S. 662.	The guidance places the year after the title.	The chosen system and the document's remaining constructions.
New York manual's parenthetical presentation for a U.S. Supreme Court identity	(Ashcroft v Iqbal, 556 US 662 [2009]).	Application of the inspected case and parenthetical forms.	The recipient's authority for requiring this treatment and the citation's sentence attachment.
A house short reference after an intervening source	Use a distinctive case name and verified source locator.	Id. cannot refer back across the intervening source under house practice.	The actual page supporting the new proposition.
A sentence discussing a separate writing	Add the writing's actual author/role and pinpoint after inspection.	Case identity alone does not identify the speaker.	The passage must belong to that writing.
A bibliography identifying the decision as an object	The identity-only reference can identify the object.	No particular holding is asserted by this exercise.	The source link must retrieve the intended decision, not a later case with a similar name.

The California arrangement is supported by the First District's official practice guidance, indexed text. The New York construction applies Style Manual §§ 1.1, 1.2(c), and 2.3(a). These examples were constructed for this desk from verified identity fields; they are not copied from either manual's example collection.

Token breakdown. The house reference can be decomposed without borrowing a commercial manual's diagram:

Ashcroft v. Iqbal | 556 | U.S. | 662 | (2009)
case identity    | vol.| report| start| decision year

If a proposition needs a pinpoint:
case identity | volume + report + start | verified target | year

If the proposition quotes a separate writing:
same identity | verified target | author + role | other required data

The second line is intentionally a field diagram rather than an invented pinpoint. A complete-looking number would teach the wrong habit if no passage had been assigned to it. When an actual proposition is supplied, read the source, identify the writing, and insert the verified target. Source inspection is part of construction, not a later cosmetic check.

Complete training conversion packet. A fictional draft contains this sequence: Marlow v. Harbor Archive, No. TRAIN-CONVERT-1, slip op. at 14–16 (Training Review Panel Apr. 4, 2026); then a quotation from page 16; then Id. at 18. The editor inserts a record citation, TRAIN-RECORD-1 at 2, between the quotation and the last reference. The repaired final authority reference is Marlow, TRAIN-CONVERT-1, at 18. The quote's source locator remains page 16. The record reference remains a different source. A one-click “convert style” command that changes punctuation but leaves the final Id. untouched has missed the substantive antecedent change.

Next, the same training matter receives an appellate appendix. The receipt's address becomes its verified appendix coordinate, while the opinion's page 18 remains an opinion locator. The editor must not add the appendix offset to every number in the paragraph. Numbers are typed fields: source pages, record pages, dates, paragraph numbers, and document-page routes. Conversion succeeds when each field retains its meaning through the new display.

Completed desk decision. Before marking a converted passage ready for editorial review, be able to state: which recipient instruction was applied; which source object and version were inspected; which writing and passage support the sentence; why the short form resolves; and whether a separate copy or record task remains. These are concrete outputs of the tables above. They make a citation useful across a student's research, a lawyer's drafting, and a later reader's verification without pretending that a house reference replaces every court's chosen system.