Worked Citation Repairs

Original Citation Code examples, research baseline October 8, 2026. These worked repairs are part of the expanded research draft. They use Citation Code's house practices unless a linked official requirement is expressly identified. A recipient's applicable directions control presentation. Real-source examples establish only the inspected source facts and passages; they do not certify current treatment, applicability, or all filing requirements.

Every fictional source packet below is invented in full for training. Its documents, people, jurisdictions, dates, quotations, and locators are stipulated facts of the exercise. No fictional reporter citation is presented as real authority. Bracketed wording expressly identified as a pattern remains a pattern. Training identifiers such as TRAIN-03 are deliberately distinguishable from actual court identifiers.

E01. A correct case identity with the wrong pinpoint

Scenario and source facts — real source; fictional editing assignment. A student writes an explanation of pleading terminology using Ashcroft v. Iqbal. The official report begins at page 662. The relevant discussion is in the Court's opinion on printed page 678, which is the seventeenth page of the downloaded PDF. The first PDF page instead begins the syllabus. The student has identified the case correctly but copied the PDF viewer's page counter into the citation.

Initial draft. “The Court distinguished plausibility from a probability requirement. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 17 (2009).”

Revised statement and citation. “The Court distinguished plausibility from a probability requirement. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).”

Reasoning. The full citation has two numerical jobs after the reporter name. The first page, 662, identifies the reported decision. The second number, 678, identifies the relied-on passage in that same publication. The viewer's count is an access coordinate for one file, not the report's pagination. Substituting it mixes two coordinate systems without explanation.

A good repair begins with the sentence. Locate the discussion in the actual judicial writing and confirm that the sentence accurately describes it. Then read the printed page number and place that number in the citation. Do not repair this by adding the report's first page again: that would restore identity while leaving the reader without the supporting location.

Variants. If the same source is already adequately identified, a house short form is Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. If the proposition expands to include the discussion on the following page, recheck the passage and use the justified range; a longer sentence does not automatically justify a longer range. If a different source supplies only slip pagination, cite the slip version actually inspected rather than guessing its reporter equivalent. A hyperlink can supplement either form but does not replace the written identity.

Exit check. Another reader should reach the paragraph from the citation without knowing the PDF's cover-page offset. The source record should retain both the original download and the printed pinpoint so future conversion does not silently change the locator.

Official grounding. The official U.S. Reports PDF, printed page 678, supplies the inspected passage and pagination. This example makes a narrow attribution to that passage, not a statement of the rule's application to a new dispute. Related sections: 4.1, 5.1–5.3, 18.1.

E02. Correcting a dissent attributed to the Court

Scenario and source facts — real source; fictional editing assignment. An associate's notes summarize the discovery-management discussion on printed page 700 of Iqbal. The source labels the writing as Justice Breyer's dissent; his separate writing starts on page 699. The draft retains the page number but changes the speaker.

Initial draft. “The Court explained that trial judges could sequence discovery to reduce burdens on senior officials. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 700 (2009).”

Revised statement and citation. “Justice Breyer's dissent discussed sequencing discovery to reduce burdens on senior officials. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 700 (2009) (Breyer, J., dissenting).”

Reasoning. This defect is about attribution. The case name, report, year, and page all identify a real item, but they do not make every passage in the volume a statement by the majority. The repaired sentence identifies the actual speaker, and the parenthetical makes the writing's role visible to someone reading the citation separately.

The editor must also revisit why this source appears. If the paragraph's purpose is to identify the Court's controlling reasoning, correcting the speaker may expose a substantive gap. A dissent cannot do the work merely by receiving a more accurate label. The next action is to examine the relevant Court opinion and the governing question, then revise the argument or select appropriate authority. If the purpose is to contrast approaches within the case, the dissent may be useful with that contrast clearly stated.

Variants. A passage in a concurrence requires the corresponding role, including a concurrence in the judgment when that is the actual designation. For a fragmented decision, inspect the votes supporting the specific portion; the first writing displayed by a database is not a reliable majority label. For a discussion beginning at the end of one writing and continuing into another on the same printed page, check the heading and actual paragraph boundary before assigning a speaker.

Exit check. The source card should name the author, writing, exact passage, and purpose for using it. Search the draft for both the full and short case names to catch other sentences that inherited the same attribution. Correcting the isolated parenthetical does not repair repeated summaries elsewhere.

Official grounding. The official U.S. Reports PDF, printed pages 699–700, identifies and contains Justice Breyer's dissent. No later-treatment determination is made here. Related sections: 4.3, 18.3, 19.3.

E03. An amended opinion changes the sentence as well as the citation

Scenario and source packet — entirely fictional. The North Coast Training Tribunal issues Aster Workshop v. Vale Supply, training matter TRAIN-03, on May 4, 2026. Its initial slip page 6 says that a notice was received on April 2. A May 11 amended opinion expressly replaces that version. The amended slip page 8 states that the delivery log shows receipt on April 4 and revises the timing discussion. Both files remain in the exercise folder. The assignment asks for a summary of the amended decision.

Initial draft. “The tribunal found receipt on April 2. Aster Workshop v. Vale Supply, No. TRAIN-03, slip op. at 6 (N. Coast Training Trib. May 11, 2026).”

Revised statement and citation. “The amended opinion identifies April 4 as the receipt date shown by the delivery log. Aster Workshop v. Vale Supply, No. TRAIN-03, amended slip op. at 8 (N. Coast Training Trib. May 11, 2026).”

Reasoning. The draft combines the newer decision date with the older passage and locator. That hybrid citation describes no version in the supplied packet. Changing only the page or only the date would still leave another inconsistency. The repair treats identity, passage, and proposition as a unit: amended document, amended location, amended factual description.

Keep both versions in the research record because the comparison explains the correction. Mark the earlier file as superseded for this exercise, while retaining its original date. Record exactly which source changed the draft and why. A filename such as opinion-final.pdf would conceal the distinction; a version-specific record would preserve it.

Variants. If the research question is what the tribunal said in its initial decision, the earlier version can be the historical object. Describe it as the May 4 opinion, cite slip page 6, and explain that it was replaced on May 11. If the amended opinion retains the same words but moves them, the proposition may remain unchanged while the locator changes. If the source packet contains a correction order but no replacement opinion, read the order and identify how it changes the cited passage rather than assuming the old PDF incorporates it.

Exit check. Compare the quotation or paraphrase against the final selected version, then check all short references. An old shorthand such as “Aster, at 6” can survive a corrected full citation and recreate the error.

Grounding. This is an original house-practice example derived entirely from the supplied fictional documents. It states no real tribunal's rule about amendment or citation. Related sections: 3.2, 18.1, 18.4, 38.4.

E04. Two similar short names and a moved immediate reference

Scenario and source packet — entirely fictional. A training memorandum uses two North Coast Training Tribunal decisions: Aster Workshop v. Vale Supply, No. TRAIN-03, amended slip opinion dated May 11, 2026, and Aster Holdings v. Bell Design, No. TRAIN-04, slip opinion dated June 2, 2026. Their relevant passages appear at pages 8 and 5 respectively. Both have already received complete citations. The editor then inserts a citation to a fictional warehouse log between the first decision and an immediate reference.

Initial draft. “The amended decision describes the receipt record. Aster, at 8. The log records a later inventory check. Warehouse Log 12 (May 20, 2026). The tribunal also addressed the absence of a signature. Id. at 9.” The assigned packet puts the signature discussion in the amended Aster Workshop opinion at page 9, not in the warehouse log.

Revised references. Use “Aster Workshop, No. TRAIN-03, amended slip op. at 8” in the first sentence and “Aster Workshop, No. TRAIN-03, amended slip op. at 9” in the last. Reserve “Aster Holdings, No. TRAIN-04, slip op. at 5” for the second decision.

Reasoning. The party word “Aster” no longer distinguishes the cases. The intervening log also breaks the intended immediate-reference relationship. The repair uses source identity already established in the memorandum and enough distinguishing information to survive ordinary editing. It does not treat the reader's familiarity with the author's research as a substitute for a usable antecedent.

Keep an internal short-name register: Aster Workshop → TRAIN-03 / amended May 11; Aster Holdings → TRAIN-04 / June 2; Warehouse Log → May 20 / packet item L-2. The printed short citation need not repeat the register, but the register exposes collisions before they spread.

Variants. If two decisions share both parties, distinguish the proceeding, date, or approved descriptive short title rather than merely repeating a surname. If a self-contained excerpt will be distributed separately, restore full references within that excerpt. For note cross-references, use the drafting software's destination fields and inspect the exported result; an automatically updated number can still point to the wrong selected note.

Exit check. After moving a paragraph or footnote, review every affected immediate reference and ambiguous short name. Read backward from the reference as a new reader would, rather than asking what the author meant.

Grounding. These are Citation Code editorial choices and stipulated fictional records; no real court short-form requirement is asserted. Related sections: 8.1–8.4, 17.1.

E05. A quotation that removes its controlling condition

Scenario and source packet — entirely fictional. A training policy issued by the fictional Harbor Review Office states in section 4: “The reviewer may accept a replacement file if the applicant submits it within ten days after written notice.” Section 5 separately permits the office director to extend that period in writing. The student's source packet contains both sections. The assignment asks what the policy says about a reviewer's ordinary authority.

Initial draft. “The policy permits a reviewer to ‘accept a replacement file.’ Harbor Review Office, File Review Policy § 4 (Jan. 6, 2026).”

Revised statement and citation. “The policy allows a reviewer to accept a replacement file if it is submitted within ten days after written notice. Harbor Review Office, File Review Policy § 4 (Jan. 6, 2026).”

Reasoning. The selected quoted words appear in the source, but the sentence broadens their meaning by suppressing the stated condition. The best repair is an accurate paraphrase that retains the condition and avoids a cumbersome quotation. The citation still identifies the exact provision; paraphrasing does not remove the need for attribution.

An alternative quotation can reproduce the entire supplied sentence, introduced as the policy's wording. If the draft changes “The reviewer” to “[A reviewer],” the brackets disclose the textual substitution but do not justify changing the source's meaning. If the policy used an emphasized word, the editor should preserve or accurately explain the emphasis under the chosen house convention. An ellipsis after “file” would disclose an omission while still failing to tell the reader the omitted condition on which the proposition depends.

Variants. If the issue concerns an extension granted by the director, cite section 5 and the particular written extension in addition to the ordinary-rule provision. If the proposition is merely that the policy uses the phrase “replacement file,” a narrowly framed quotation of those words may be sufficient. If the source says “may,” the draft should not silently substitute “must.” For a source quoting another document, identify which text supplies the words and obtain the underlying document when its wording is central.

Exit check. Read the paragraph with the source open and ask whether a reader would understand the condition, decision maker, and scope. A quotation-mark comparison alone would pass the defective initial excerpt even though the proposition is overstated.

Grounding. All policy language and institutional details are invented for this exercise. The repair teaches Citation Code quotation fidelity and does not establish real administrative discretion. Related sections: 6.5, 7.1–7.5.

E06. Historical statutory text and an express transition clause

Scenario and source packet — entirely fictional. The fictional State of Lexford supplies three training documents. Its 2023 Training Licensing Code § 18.40(b) gives the applicant 30 days to supplement an application. Training Act 2025-7, section 2, replaces “30” with “20.” Section 6 expressly applies the amendment only to applications received on or after July 1, 2025. The 2025 code compilation incorporates the change. The fictional application receipt is June 20, 2025. No other transition rule is supplied; the exercise concerns this stated textual distinction, not calculation of a final deadline.

Initial draft. “The applicant had 20 days to supplement because the current code says so. Lexford Training Licensing Code § 18.40(b) (2025).”

Revised statement and citations. “For the supplied application received June 20, the packet's transition clause leaves the former 30-day period applicable. Lexford Training Licensing Code § 18.40(b) (2023); Lexford Training Act 2025-7, §§ 2, 6 (2025); Application Receipt, packet item R-1 (June 20, 2025).”

Reasoning. Three different sources establish three parts of the conclusion. The earlier code supplies the former period. The act supplies the changed text and the applicability boundary. The receipt supplies the event date that selects the side of the boundary. Today's code page alone cannot establish that temporal chain.

Keep the act's section numbers distinct from the code's section number. Here act section 2 amends code section 18.40(b); these are not competing citations to the same location. The code's 2023 year identifies the compilation inspected, not necessarily the provision's enactment year. The 2025 compilation is relevant to the new text but is not the sole source for the earlier rule.

Variants. If the receipt instead shows July 2, the application falls on the other side of the supplied transition condition; inspect any other relevant provisions before calculating a date. If the act's effective and applicability dates differ, preserve both rather than treating them as synonyms. If the transition clause appears as a note in a code display, inspect the enacted text identified by that note. If no transition language is supplied, flag the applicability question rather than manufacturing one from the publication year.

Exit check. A reviewer should be able to reconstruct the version choice from the three references. The calculation of days, service rules, exceptions, and any real jurisdiction's retroactivity law are outside this fictional packet.

Official source context. GPO's U.S. Code guide explains editions and cumulative supplements. That publication description supports preserving version information; it does not supply the fictional state's rule. Related sections: 9.2–9.4, 20.1–20.5.

E07. Restoring a missing statutory subdivision

Scenario and source facts — real text; fictional editing assignment. An editor checks a paper discussing the request conditions stated in the 2024 title 5 compilation. The paper means to identify the provision addressing a reasonably described records request made in accordance with the agency's published procedures. The relevant text is in section 552(a)(3)(A), printed on page 110 of the selected compilation.

Initial citation. “5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(A) (2024).”

Revised statement and citation. “The selected compilation states request-description and published-procedure conditions in subsection (a)(3)(A). 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(3)(A) (2024).”

Reasoning. The missing (3) is part of the address. Walk from section 552 to subsection (a), then paragraph (3), then subparagraph (A). Each step constrains the location. The similar-looking (A) under a different numbered paragraph is a different provision, even if it appears on the same PDF page.

The revised sentence is deliberately narrow: it identifies what this provision states in the inspected compilation. It does not promise release of all requested records or summarize the whole statute. The provision contains qualifications, and the rest of the statute may matter to a particular request. Expanding the proposition would require further source and legal analysis. The repair therefore improves both the locator and the sentence's scope.

Variants. If the proposition concerns reproducibility in a requested format, the adjacent subparagraph is a separate research destination; do not assume that a citation ending in (A) covers it. If the sentence discusses two nonconsecutive subdivisions, list the actual subdivisions rather than using a range that includes intervening material. If the work must state present law, check the applicable current text and intervening amendments rather than changing (2024) to the current year without a new inspection.

Exit check. Open the selected source and follow the written hierarchy without using a text search. Then verify that the linked file contains the same version. The filename's inclusion of sec552 establishes a section-level route but not the correctness of the terminal subparagraph. The short source record should retain the version and relevant heading in addition to the final citation.

Official grounding. The inspected 2024 U.S. Code PDF for § 552, printed page 110, supplies the actual hierarchy and text. The house citation identifies the compilation used. Related sections: 5.1, 9.3–9.4, 20.4.

E08. A rulemaking publication whose compliance dates later changed

Scenario and source facts — real publications; fictional editing assignment. An editor reviews a historical account of the Department of Justice's web-accessibility rulemaking. The account cites the April 24, 2024 final rule and states that the later amendment merely invited comments. The source packet also contains the April 20, 2026 instrument. Its action line identifies an interim final rule requesting comments, its dates field gives an April 20 effective date, and its operative instructions amend two dates in 28 C.F.R. § 35.200(b).

Initial draft. “The 2026 document was only a proposal, so the original compliance dates remained unchanged. 89 Fed. Reg. 31320 (Apr. 24, 2024).”

Revised statement and citation. “The April 20, 2026 interim final rule amended the two compliance dates in § 35.200(b), substituting April 26, 2027 and April 26, 2028 respectively. Extension of Compliance Dates for Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability; Accessibility of Web Information and Services of State and Local Government Entities, 91 Fed. Reg. 20902, 20912 (Apr. 20, 2026).”

Reasoning. A request for comments does not itself classify a document as merely proposed. Read the action line, dates field, and operative text together. The historical citation to the 2024 publication locates the earlier instrument; it cannot establish that no later amendment occurred. The revised citation uses the 2026 publication's first page for identity and its printed page 20912 for the amendment instructions.

Preserve separate records for the 2024 instrument, the later amendment, and any current codification inspected for a practical question. Do not replace the entire source history with a mutable code link. Conversely, do not present a historical amendment example as a complete statement of an entity's present duties. That would require checking the actual entity, applicable provisions, exceptions, later developments, and any relevant orders.

Variants. To describe the agency's explanation for the change, cite the explanatory passage on page 20908 rather than relying on the operative instructions alone. To describe what the 2024 rule originally provided, use that publication and explicitly locate the statement in time. Publication date, effective date, and compliance date each answer a different question.

Exit check. Verify the printed first and pinpoint pages and the document number 2026-07663. This PDF's first page includes the end of another instrument; locate the DOJ heading rather than assuming every paragraph on the first page belongs to the cited rule.

Official grounding. 2026 interim final rule, printed pages 20902, 20908, and 20912; 2024 final rule, document identity; GPO's Federal Register guide, publication categories. This example reports these instruments' contents, not a complete current-law opinion. Related sections: 10.1–10.3, 22.1–22.3, 37.3.

E09. Deposition testimony, an errata sheet, and a renumbered appendix

Scenario and source packet — entirely fictional. In training matter TRAIN-09, Mara Chen's May 12, 2026 deposition transcript contains the answer “Tuesday” at 44:8–12. A signed May 26 errata sheet changes that answer to “Thursday,” stating “I checked my calendar after the deposition.” The exercise supplies both documents without deciding the change's legal effect. The draft appendix placed transcript page 44 at A118 and the errata sheet at A145. Adding six pages before these materials moves them to A124 and A151 in the final appendix. The assignment asks the editor to describe the record accurately, using the final appendix and underlying source coordinates together.

Initial draft. “Chen testified that the inspection occurred Thursday. Chen Dep. 44:8–12, A118.”

Revised statement and citations. “Chen initially answered Tuesday; her later signed errata sheet changed the answer to Thursday after she checked her calendar. Chen Dep. 44:8–12 (May 12, 2026), A124; Chen Errata Sheet, entry for 44:8–12 (May 26, 2026), A151.”

Reasoning. The original sentence attributes the later correction to the transcript as delivered. It also directs the reader to a superseded appendix page. The repair identifies both documentary events and remaps each location. It does not resolve credibility, admissibility, the permissible scope of an errata change, or which answer a court will credit. Those questions require applicable law and the actual procedural record.

Preserve the two-coordinate relationship in a small crosswalk:

Source identity	Intrinsic locator	Draft appendix	Final appendix
Chen deposition, May 12	44:8–12	A118	A124
Chen errata, May 26	Entry for 44:8–12	A145	A151

The stable source locator tells the reader where the content appears inside the original item. The appendix locator tells the reader where the final filing reproduces it. The drafting software's PDF page counter is a third coordinate; it is not silently substituted for either. If the errata sheet is appended to a combined transcript file, it remains an identifiable document with its own date and role.

Variants. If the sentence concerns what Chen said at the deposition, report the initial answer and disclose the later change when relevant to the proposition. If a quotation spans two transcript pages, identify both page-and-line endpoints. If the final appendix omits the errata sheet, flag the incomplete packet rather than inventing a location. If the governing directions demand only one citation system, follow them while retaining the crosswalk in the working record.

Exit check. Open the exact final appendix at A124 and A151. Confirm the witness name, session date, question and answer, changed words, stated reason, and visible page labels. Search the whole draft for the obsolete A118 and A145 references; a corrected sentence does not fix repeated uses elsewhere.

Official source context. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(e), printed pages 52–53 in the inspected compilation, addresses requested review, a signed statement of changes and reasons, and attachment of changes. This example does not decide compliance with that rule or the legal treatment of this invented correction. Related sections: 11.2–11.4, 26.2–26.3, 36.4.

E10. A pleading allegation turned into an established fact

Scenario and source packet — entirely fictional. In training matter TRAIN-10, an unverified complaint alleges in paragraph 18 that a warehouse manager received a delivery at 9:00 a.m. A signed declaration by Lena Ortiz states in paragraph 7 that Ortiz saw a truck at the loading bay at approximately 9:15 a.m., but did not see an exchange of goods. An attached gate log records the truck's entry at 9:12 a.m. The assignment asks for a source-supported chronology and expressly supplies no admission or finding establishing the delivery time.

Initial draft. “The manager received delivery at 9:00 a.m., as the evidence conclusively establishes. Compl. ¶ 18; Ortiz Decl. ¶ 7.”

Revised passage and citations. “The complaint alleges delivery at 9:00 a.m. Compl. ¶ 18, training matter TRAIN-10 (June 3, 2026). Ortiz states that she saw the truck at the loading bay at approximately 9:15 a.m., but did not observe a transfer of goods. Ortiz Decl. ¶ 7 (June 8, 2026). The attached gate log records entry at 9:12 a.m. Id. Ex. A, entry for vehicle T-6 (June 2, 2026). These materials do not themselves establish the precise time at which the manager received the goods.”

Reasoning. The first repair is verbal: “alleges,” “states,” and “records” match the roles of the actual materials. None of those verbs converts the assertion into an adjudicated fact. The editor then separates propositions that the initial string had blended. Seeing a truck, recording its entry, and witnessing delivery are different observations. A precise citation cannot supply a missing observation.

The conclusion at the end is bounded to the supplied packet. It does not announce a universal evidentiary rule about complaints, declarations, or business records. A different record could include a verified pleading, an admission, a stipulation, a ruling, or a witness with direct knowledge. The editor must inspect that material and its procedural role before changing the sentence.

For a statement of facts, create one row per proposition: delivery at 9:00 / complaint ¶18 / allegation only; truck seen around 9:15 / Ortiz ¶7 / observation; entry at 9:12 / log Ex.A / recorded event. This exposes the gap without burying it in a long citation. It also gives the lawyer a concrete research or evidence request: identify a source about receipt itself.

Variants. If the assignment is to summarize the pleading, the first sentence alone may be enough. If it is to describe an undisputed fact, determine the procedural basis for that status. If the declaration conflicts with a transcript, cite and describe the conflict rather than choosing the convenient passage silently. An exhibit attached to a declaration does not automatically inherit every assertion made in that declaration.

Exit check. Read the chronology with the source-status column visible. Every assertion about what happened should be supported at the claimed level of certainty. Any remaining inference should be identified as an inference and linked to its supporting premises.

Official source context. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c), printed page 82 in the inspected compilation, addresses particular record materials, objections, and affidavit/declaration requirements for that procedure. Its application requires more than this fictional citation exercise. Related sections: 3.1, 11.1, 26.5, 36.2.

E11. An executed contract and a later amendment do different work

Scenario and source packet — entirely fictional. The packet contains an unsigned February 3, 2026 draft of a services agreement, an executed February 10 agreement between Alder Studio and Vale Supply, and an executed June 1 Amendment No. 1. Draft section 8.2 would have required weekly reports. Executed section 8.2 requires monthly reports. Amendment section 2 replaces the executed section with a quarterly-report provision effective July 1. Amendment section 4 expressly states that reporting periods ending before July 1 remain governed by the former text. The assignment concerns the reporting period ending May 31. These contractual terms are stipulated exercise facts; enforceability and governing-law questions are outside the assignment.

Initial draft. “The May reporting period required quarterly reports under the latest agreement. Services Agreement § 8.2 (Feb. 3, 2026).”

Revised statement and citations. “For the period ending May 31, the supplied executed agreement and amendment retain the monthly-report provision. Services Agreement between Alder Studio and Vale Supply § 8.2 (executed Feb. 10, 2026); Amendment No. 1 §§ 2, 4 (executed June 1, 2026; reporting change effective July 1, 2026).”

Reasoning. The draft combines the date of an unsigned negotiating document with the substance of a later amendment and applies the result to the wrong period. The correction requires three distinctions: draft versus executed instrument; original provision versus amending instrument; execution date versus the specified temporal application. “Latest” is too vague to make these distinctions.

The agreement's section 8.2 and the amendment's section 2 have different addresses. A citation to “Agreement §2” would send the reader elsewhere. Keep a version record that identifies the signed document, the precise amendment, and the affected provision. Where the source packet uses internal file IDs, retain them in the work record without pretending that they are public registration numbers.

If preparing a client memorandum, show the operative chain briefly: executed §8.2 → amendment §2 replacement → amendment §4 preservation for earlier periods. That chain explains why the newest words are not the only relevant words. It also identifies the document missing from a recipient's file if the recipient holds only the original agreement.

Variants. If the question is what the parties proposed on February 3, cite the draft and label it as such. If the final signed version lacks a schedule that the text incorporates, report the missing schedule; do not use the negotiating draft as if it supplies the executed attachment. If the amendment changes only one sentence, cite the unchanged provision and the amendment without calling the whole contract restated. If a later agreement expressly restates the full instrument, use its own identity and temporal provisions.

Exit check. Verify signatures or the stipulated executed status, parties, document date, amendment number, section identifiers, and the period under discussion. Retain the original and amended text side by side. The editorial conclusion is confined to the documents' stated terms and does not determine breach, waiver, interpretation disputes, or enforceability.

Grounding. Every instrument and quoted term is invented for this exercise. The citation format and version-control method are Citation Code house practices. Related sections: 25.1–25.5, 37.1, 38.1.

E12. A journal article number is not its first page

Scenario and source packet — entirely fictional. Noor Hale and Evan Park publish “Retrieval Errors in Small Legal Archives” in the fictional Journal of Record Methods, volume 8, issue 2, in 2026. The publisher assigns article identifier e104; the article's own PDF numbers pages 1–18. Table 3 appears on printed page 12. An earlier preprint, posted in 2025 as training repository item PREPRINT-12-v1, has a different title, “Finding Records in Small Archives,” and its third table uses an earlier sample. The fictional publisher assigns no DOI. The assignment discusses the final article's Table 3.

Initial draft. “Hale, Finding Records in Small Archives, 8 J. Record Methods 104, 3 (2026).”

Revised citation. “Noor Hale & Evan Park, Retrieval Errors in Small Legal Archives, 8(2) Journal of Record Methods, art. e104, at 12 tbl. 3 (2026).”

Reasoning. The repair separates four coordinates: volume and issue identify the journal grouping; e104 identifies the article; page 12 locates the passage within that article; Table 3 identifies the display on that page. Converting e104 into page 104 would invent pagination. Using the table number as page 3 would invent another address. The original draft also omits a named coauthor and combines the preprint title with the final publication's year.

Construct the reference from one coherent source record. Check the title page or publisher metadata against the actual version used, then locate the supporting table in that version. Retain the preprint separately if comparing the study's development. A reference manager's existing entry may describe the preprint even after the PDF in the folder has been replaced by the final article.

The house form spells out the unfamiliar journal name because its identity matters more than an unsupported abbreviation. A receiving journal may prefer another rendering. Apply that presentation requirement after preserving the source's authors, title, publication identity, and locator. No DOI is added here because the fictional packet assigns none; a plausible-looking DOI would be a fabricated source identifier.

Variants. If relying on the preprint's analysis, use “Noor Hale & Evan Park, Finding Records in Small Archives, at 10 tbl. 3 (2025), preprint, training repository item PREPRINT-12-v1,” provided the packet places that table at page 10. If the final article has assigned paragraph numbers instead of pages, use those actual paragraph identifiers. If the publisher supplies a correction affecting Table 3, examine and cite that correction as appropriate rather than treating a persistent link as proof that the content has never changed.

Exit check. A reader should retrieve the final article, locate Table 3, and reproduce the attributed proposition without consulting the preprint. The bibliography, notes, and linked file should all identify the same version and both authors.

Primary publisher guidance. Crossref's display guidelines recommend displaying its DOI links in the https://doi.org/… form. That guidance supports how to display an actually assigned identifier; it supplies no identifier for this invented article and is not a court citation rule. Related sections: 12.1–12.3, 29.1–29.3, 29.5.

E13. A webpage update and a social post have separate publication histories

Scenario and source packet — entirely fictional. The fictional Harbor Museum publishes a page titled “Reading Room Hours” on January 8, 2026, at https://museum.example/reading-room. A preserved January 10 capture says the room closes at 5 p.m. The page is updated on March 2 to say 6 p.m. A March 3 social post by @HarborMuseum links to that page but concerns an April event. The exercise includes the post's full text, identifier TRAIN-POST-13, timestamp 14:20 UTC, and an authorized capture. The assignment concerns what the museum's page displayed on January 10, not whether the room actually remained open until the advertised time.

Initial draft. “On January 10, the museum advertised a 6 p.m. closing time. Harbor Museum, Reading Room Hours (Mar. 3, 2026), museum.example.”

Revised statement and citation. “The preserved January 10 capture of the museum's page advertises a 5 p.m. closing time. Harbor Museum, Reading Room Hours (published Jan. 8, 2026), https://museum.example/reading-room, capture Jan. 10, 2026, training archive item WEB-13-A.”

Reasoning. The initial draft borrows the current page's wording, the social post's date, and an imprecise home-domain address, then uses that combination to make a historical claim. None of the supplied objects has that combination of facts. The repaired reference identifies the historical capture and states only what that capture shows.

Record publication, update, and capture dates as distinct fields. If the page does not show a publication date, say that the date is unavailable instead of deriving one from a linked post. The social post can supply its own assertion or a route to the page, but its timestamp does not become the webpage's publication date. A screenshot should preserve enough context to identify the account and post, while the source record should retain the URL or platform identifier and the full text available for review.

The .example address is a deliberately reserved training address, not a retrieval claim. In a real source packet, use the actual item URL and a lawful preserved copy or archive link when available. Do not publish private-access tokens or treat a login-dependent personal URL as a durable public route.

Variants. To discuss the update, write that the March 2 version advertises 6 p.m. and identify that version separately. To discuss the event announcement, cite the individual post with account, date, time zone when needed, text or supplied descriptive title, and item identifier. If a post merely embeds someone else's video, distinguish the post from the underlying recording and cite the recording's timestamp for a claim about its contents. If a capture is incomplete, describe that limit before inferring what an omitted part did or did not contain.

Exit check. Open the preserved item used for each sentence. Confirm the displayed words, account or author, version date, capture context, and time zone. The reference should not turn evidence of an advertisement into proof of actual opening hours.

Grounding. All publications, accounts, text, dates, and capture IDs are stipulated training facts. These are original house practices for source identity and version fidelity, not a ruling about authentication or admissibility. Related sections: 12.4–12.5, 30.1–30.3, 39.3.

E14. A percentage changes when the denominator changes

Scenario and source packet — entirely fictional. Dataset TRAIN-DATA-14, version 1.2, contains 1,200 shipment rows. Its dictionary defines a shipment as the unit of observation and records status as delivered, cancelled, or pending. There are 900 delivered shipments, of which 90 have delivered_after_promised = true; the remaining 300 rows comprise 200 cancellations and 100 pending shipments. The late-delivery field is blank for those 300 rows, not false. A supplied analysis workbook has a named sheet delivered_only, a count cell B4 of 900, a late-count cell B5 of 90, and a percentage cell B6 of 10%. The dataset was released September 15, 2026. The exercise provides no sampling or population-representativeness claim.

Initial draft. “Only 7.5% of customers received late deliveries. Shipment Data (2026).”

Revised statement and references. “In the supplied version 1.2 dataset, 90 of 900 delivered shipments were marked late, or 10%. TRAIN-DATA-14, version 1.2, data dictionary entries status and delivered_after_promised (Sept. 15, 2026); analysis workbook TRAIN-ANALYSIS-14, sheet delivered_only, cells B4:B6 (Sept. 18, 2026).”

Reasoning. Dividing 90 by all 1,200 rows produces 7.5%, but that calculation answers a different question: the share of all listed shipment rows marked late. It does not describe the lateness rate among deliveries. The initial sentence also changes the observation unit from shipments to customers. One customer may have multiple shipments, and the packet contains no customer-level calculation. The repair names the actual denominator and unit.

Preserve the transformation as well as the source. Here the calculation is reproducible: filter status = delivered, count the retained rows, count late flags within that subset, divide 90 by 900, and multiply by 100. Blank values outside the subset are not silently recoded as on-time deliveries. The workbook reference identifies the researcher's calculation; the dataset reference identifies the underlying observations. Neither reference replaces the dictionary that defines the fields.

Do not infer precision that the packet does not support. Writing 10.0000% would add digits without resolving any uncertainty. Calling the result a national delivery rate would add a population claim without a sampling basis. The source-supported statement remains a description of these supplied records.

Variants. If the assignment asks what proportion of all listed shipment rows is marked late, report 90 of 1,200, 7.5%, and make the denominator explicit. If a later version corrects duplicate shipments, rerun the calculation and identify that version. If a script performs the calculation, retain its version and relevant command or transformation description, while keeping credentials and private paths out of the published citation. If an expert report relies on the result, identify the report's own passage separately from the underlying data and analysis.

Exit check. A second reviewer should reproduce both the 900-row filter and the 90-row numerator from the supplied fields. Confirm that the sentence, table heading, chart label, footnote, and citation all use the same unit and version.

Grounding. The dataset, values, identifiers, and analysis are invented for this arithmetic and citation exercise. The computed percentages are exact for the stipulated counts. No empirical legal, commercial, or population claim is made. Related sections: 27.1–27.4, 30.4, 40.2.

E15. Treaty wording does not establish a state's status

Scenario and source packet — entirely fictional. The packet contains the invented Convention on Shared Archive Access, training treaty TRAIN-TREATY-15, dated June 1, 2020. Article 6 describes an information-exchange process. Article 18 states, for this exercise, that the convention enters into force for a state 60 days after that state deposits its instrument of ratification. A fictional depositary status record, preserved on September 10, 2026, lists the State of Orin's signature on July 2, 2020 and ratification deposit on August 1, 2026; it expressly gives September 30, 2026 as the state-specific entry-into-force date. The assignment asks what the supplied records establish about Orin on September 10. No reservation or provisional-application instrument is supplied.

Initial draft. “Orin was already bound by article 6 on September 10 because it signed the convention. Convention on Shared Archive Access art. 6 (2020).”

Revised statement and citations. “The supplied status record lists Orin's ratification deposit on August 1 and its state-specific entry-into-force date as September 30; it therefore does not support treating September 10 as a date on which article 6 was already in force for Orin under the packet's stated entry-into-force terms. Convention on Shared Archive Access arts. 6, 18, training treaty TRAIN-TREATY-15 (June 1, 2020); Training Depositary, Status Record for TRAIN-TREATY-15, Orin entry (capture Sept. 10, 2026).”

Reasoning. Article 6 supplies the substantive wording. Article 18 supplies the stipulated temporal mechanism. The depositary entry supplies the state-specific acts and dates. Citing article 6 alone cannot establish all three. The initial sentence also substitutes signature for the later act that the supplied treaty makes relevant to entry into force.

The conclusion is deliberately confined to the packet and its stated mechanism. It does not decide other obligations associated with signature, the legal effect of reservations, domestic implementation, provisional application, succession, or customary international law. A real analysis would inspect the applicable treaty terms and authoritative status materials for those issues. This exercise avoids importing a generalized rule into an invented instrument.

Keep treaty identity and status-record identity separate. The treaty's 2020 date does not date every later party-status event. The status record's September 10 capture date identifies when the researcher preserved that view; it does not replace the August 1 deposit or September 30 date shown within the entry. If a status service updates its page, preserve the previously inspected state-specific record for the historical question.

Variants. To quote the information-exchange process, cite article 6 and the language version actually used. To identify present party status, obtain a current authoritative status record and inspect any notes or declarations. If the status table uses symbols, read its legend before assigning an event type. If an unofficial translation is used, identify the translator or source and do not describe it as authentic treaty text without support.

Exit check. A reviewer should be able to identify the treaty text, the entry-into-force provision, the state-specific status entry, and the research date independently. Any statement broader than those materials should remain an explicit unresolved research question.

Grounding. The treaty, states, depositary, dates, and stipulated legal mechanism are wholly invented. This is a source-selection and temporal-attribution exercise, not advice about any actual state's treaty obligations. Related sections: 13.1–13.3, 31.1–31.2, 31.5.

E16. A final manuscript repair that has not reached the released file

Scenario and source packet — entirely fictional. A training team prepares a 24-page memorandum, an appendix, an authority list, and a client handoff. At 10:00 a.m. an editor corrects a case pinpoint in the editable manuscript from page 6 to page 8 after discovering that the draft used an earlier opinion. At 10:15 another editor adds four pages to the appendix before a relied-on exhibit, moving its final label from A52 to A56. The folder still contains a PDF exported at 9:30, a table of authorities generated yesterday, and a handoff note saying “all citations checked.” The exercise does not authorize filing or sending any document.

Initial release record. “Final memo.pdf — all citations checked; appendix complete; ready to send.”

Revised release record. “Release candidate TRAIN-RELEASE-16-02, exported after the 10:00 pinpoint correction and 10:15 appendix revision. The selected opinion citation is verified at page 8 in the supplied amended version. The exhibit reference is verified at final appendix A56. The table of authorities was regenerated from this candidate and its locators checked against this PDF. The earlier PDF is superseded. The package remains an internal review candidate; no filing, delivery, acceptance, or independent legal review is recorded.”

Reasoning. A correction in an editable file is not evidence that the distributed PDF contains it. The relevant unit of final review is the exact artifact and its related package. Give each release candidate an identity, record which source versions it uses, and inspect the generated output. The necessary checks are directed by what changed: the opinion citation, affected short forms, appendix references, authority-list locators, and any links that depended on pagination.

The phrase “all citations checked” hides different tasks. Split the record into useful states: source identity inspected; relied-on passage compared; version selected; receiving requirements reviewed; final PDF locator opened; unresolved issue recorded. A checked box for one task does not certify the others. If a legal-status check has not been performed, state that fact rather than allowing a general approval phrase to imply it.

A compact handoff can identify the release file, its content hash, the matching appendix, the source register, the completed review scope, and unresolved items. A hash helps distinguish files; it is not proof that the contents are legally correct. Keep the review copy and released copy aligned so a later correction has an identifiable starting point.

Variants. If a late edit affects only a caption, inspect the caption and dependent references rather than blindly rerunning unrelated work. If the appendix is rebuilt, revisit its crosswalk and each changed coordinate. If the recipient requires a particular PDF standard, confirm the actual export meets that requirement. If the package is later filed, add the filing confirmation and accepted artifact identity to the release record; a successful local export does not establish court acceptance.

Exit check. Open the exact candidate file as a recipient would. Follow the corrected case reference, the A56 exhibit reference, the authority-list locator, and a sample internal link. Confirm that redactions, searchable text, bookmarks, and attachments survive export where used. Have the handoff identify what was checked and what remains unresolved in language another reviewer can act on.

Grounding. All documents, times, changes, and release IDs are invented. This is Citation Code's original editorial release method; no actual court filing or service rule is asserted, and no real message or filing has been sent. Related sections: 16.1–16.5, 36.3–36.5, 38.2–38.4, 39.1–39.5.