The three failure modes: nonexistent case, real case wrong holding, real case wrong pin

1 · Learn the move · Comparison matrix

Lawyers who have been burned once check for the first failure and stop. There are three, and the second is the one that gets past a careful reader. NONEXISTENT: the case does not resolve; the reporter has no such page, or the page is a different case. Easy to catch once you look, and the one every sanctions order describes [S]. WRONG HOLDING: the case exists, the parties are right, and it holds something adjacent, narrower, or the opposite. The model produced a real cite and attached your proposition to it. This is the honest majority of what a verifier finds, and no existence check catches it; only reading the passage does. WRONG PIN: the case exists and holds what you need, somewhere else; the page cited is the dissent, the facts, or a different issue. A judge who turns to the pin and finds the dissent does not read further. A comparison matrix across the three keeps the checks separate: existence is a lookup, holding is a reading, pin is a page turn, and a draft can pass two and fail the third. Make the model lay the matrix out so you fill it in. It fills nothing.

For each authority in this list [paste the extraction table], build a three-column check matrix: EXISTS? | HOLDS THE PROPOSITION? | PIN CORRECT? Every cell reads 'to check' with the one action that would settle it (open the reporter page; read the passage at the pin; compare the pin to the page where the holding appears). You cannot settle any cell. Add a fourth column, RISK IF WRONG, in one clause: what the judge finds if this cell fails.