Red-team the brief you filed last month

1 · Learn the move · Red-team audit

The useful audit is the one you run on a filing that is already in, where the stakes are real and the habit was whatever it was. Take last month's brief, pull every authority, and open each one as if you were opposing counsel looking for the cite that does not hold. You will find at least one soft pin. You may find worse. What you do with that depends on the rules: a false statement of law to a tribunal carries a duty to correct that the model does not share [M], and that call is yours and your supervising partner's, not a lesson page's. The model's part is to be the adversary: it reads the brief and the extraction table and writes the paragraph opposing counsel would write about each weak cite, which makes the weak ones impossible to read past. It must not soften, must not say the brief is fine, and must not supply replacement authorities, because a replacement from the same process is a new unverified cite. The output of this lesson is a list of page-opens and, for anything that fails, a sentence that begins 'the rule on correction in this court is' followed by VERIFY.

Here is a brief I filed last month, de-identified: [paste]. Here is the authority table I extracted from it with each row's state after I opened it: [paste]. Act as opposing counsel. For each authority marked EXISTS, HOLDING UNCHECKED or DOES NOT RESOLVE, write the paragraph you would file about it. For each quotation, ask whether the words appear on the page. Do not soften, do not say any cite is fine, and do not suggest a replacement authority. End with the question I have to take to my supervising partner, stated neutrally, and the rule on correction as [VERIFY: the rule in this court].