Edit

The last read before it goes out

Catches the contradictions a tired reader misses: dates that changed mid-draft, a party called three things, a cross-reference to a section that moved, and the format rules a clerk rejects filings over.

About 12 minstarterLitigation

Your prompt5,303 characters

Still to fill in: The document as it will go out, What this is, Court and format rules

RoleYou are the person who reads a document last, after everyone who knows what it means has stopped being able to see it. You do not read for argument. You extract every date, number, name, and reference into a ledger and run the ledger against itself, because a document that has been through four drafts and three lawyers contradicts itself somewhere, and it is never where anyone looked.What I needRun the final consistency and format check on the What this is below before it goes to Court and format rules.InputsDocument: The document as it will go out What this is: What this is Where it is going: Court and format rules House formatting rules: House formatting rulesHow to work this1. Build the ledger by extraction rather than by reading for sense: every date, every dollar figure and quantity, every party and person name with each variant spelling, every defined or short-form term, every section and exhibit number, and every internal cross-reference. Record each with every location it appears. 2. Run the ledger against itself and report each conflict with both locations and the two competing values. Look for the same event given two dates, a figure that differs between the body and a table or a declaration, a party called three things, a short form used before it is defined, a cross-reference pointing at a section that moved or no longer exists, an exhibit cited in the text but absent from the exhibit list, and a verb tense that flips mid-document. Report conflicts; do not silently pick a winner. 3. Check the mechanical requirements a What this is has to satisfy in Court and format rules: caption and case number, signature block with bar number, certificate of service, date, page or line numbering, required tables and certificates, exhibit labeling, and anything in House formatting rules. Mark every item you cannot verify from the text itself [CONFIRM - local rule or standing order] rather than stating the requirement. 4. Say explicitly what this pass did not check: whether the citations are accurate, whether the law is current, whether the facts are true, and whether the argument works. A consistency check that reports clean is not a clean bill of health, and the report must say so.Close with these four sections, every time, without being askedAssumptions I made. Which value I treated as correct when two conflicted, and every requirement I inferred rather than read. Mark each [verify] or [safe]. Where this is weakest. The two conflicts most likely to be false positives: a date that legitimately differs because two events happened, a figure that differs because one is gross and one is net, a name variant that is actually a different entity. Quote both. What only you can decide. Options with tradeoffs, never a bare flag. At minimum: which conflicting value is the right one, on every conflict I found. I can tell you the document says two things; only you know which is true, and picking the wrong one turns a typo into a misrepresentation to the court. Also yours: whether a conflict is worth reopening a document that other people have already signed off on, against the cost of filing a document that contradicts itself. What would make this materially better. Ranked: the docket or scheduling order behind any contested date, the local rule and standing order text, the declarations and exhibits so the figures can be reconciled against their sources, and the previous version so I can see which values changed.Output formatOpen with the conflict list: each conflict numbered, with both locations, both values, and which one the rest of the document supports. Then the mechanical checklist as a table (Item | Status: pass, fail, or confirm | Note). Then the ledger itself, grouped by dates, figures, names, terms, and cross-references. Close with a short block titled "Not checked in this pass," naming citation accuracy, currency of law, factual truth, and the argument. Then the four sections.Never do this- If the conflict list could belong to any filing, it is too generic. Every entry quotes this document and gives two locations. - No hedging filler. "There may be an inconsistency" is not a finding. Give both values and both locations. Do not tell me to consult an attorney; I am the attorney. - Never verify a citation, correct a case name, or assert that a local rule requires something unless my inputs show it. Mark it [CONFIRM - local rule] or [UNVERIFIED - check before filing] and leave it. - Where a conflict might be legitimate rather than an error, say you do not know which and give both readings. Do not smooth over the doubt by picking one. - Do not pad the ledger with values that appear once and conflict with nothing. Report the conflicts. Length is not value.Before you answer- Does every conflict carry two locations and two values? - Did I pick a winner anywhere instead of reporting the conflict? - Is every mechanical item I could not verify from the text marked [CONFIRM] rather than asserted? - Did I check the tables, footnotes, caption, and signature block, or only the body? - Did I include the "Not checked in this pass" block?

The run walks turn one, the pressure test, the follow-up, and a check on what came back. The Cockpit adds driver's-seat tunes. Your values come with either one.

Pressure-test it

Makes the AI switch hats and attack its own answer.

The clerk's office rejects filings on form before a judge reads a word of them. Go through the document as the deputy clerk doing intake in Court and format rules: name every item that bounces it back, in the order you would hit them, and say which one I cannot fix from the text alone and have to look up. Then tell me the single item on your list that most people get wrong on a What this is in this court.

Go deeper

Pushes the work further once the basics are right.

Everything on the conflict list is a question for somebody. Turn the output into a two-column punch list for the filing: what has to be fixed inside the document, and what has to be confirmed outside it, each with the person who owns it and the hour it has to be done by, ordered so that nothing sits waiting on a task nobody has started.

4Check what came backPaste the answer here and work a checklist against this prompt's own rules.

Before you run it

What to gather first

The complete document as it will go out, including caption, tables, exhibits, and signature block
The court or recipient and the format rules that apply
What kind of document it is, since the mechanical requirements differ
House formatting rules if your firm has them

Watch for

This pass checks the document against itself. It says nothing about whether the citations are real, the law is current, or the facts are true.
The model will report false conflicts where two figures legitimately differ, and it will miss a conflict inside a table it parsed badly. Read the conflict list rather than accepting it.
Local rules and standing orders on format vary by court and by judge, and the model cannot read them. Every [CONFIRM] item is yours.
Picking the wrong value when two dates conflict can turn a drafting error into a misstatement to the court. Resolve each conflict against the source document, not against the rest of the draft.

What comes back

A numbered conflict list, each with both locations, both values, and which the rest of the document supports. Then a mechanical checklist table (item, pass or fail or confirm, note), the ledger grouped by dates, figures, names, terms, and cross-references, an explicit "Not checked in this pass" block, and the four closing sections.

See an example of what you’ll get

Conflicts 1. Date of the termination letter. Body p. 4: "BetaCorp's April 14, 2025 letter." Statement of Facts ¶ 17: "the letter of April 11, 2025." Exhibit list: "Ex. 12, Letter dated April 14, 2025." Two of three say April 14. [The declaration at ¶ 6 is the source; check it, not this document.] 2. Cover damages figure. Body p. 9: "$842,000." Separate statement ¶ 22: "$842,600." Declaration of Ochoa ¶ 11 (quoted at p. 11): "$842,600." Two of three say $842,600, and the one that differs is the number in the argument. 3. Party name. "BetaCorp," "Beta Corp.," and "BetaCorp Industries, Inc." all appear. The caption uses "BetaCorp Industries, Inc." First use in the body never defines a short form. 4. Cross-reference. P. 7: "as set forth in Section II.C above." The document has no Section II.C; Argument II ends at II.B. Section II.C existed in the version that also contained the mitigation argument. 5. Exhibit cited but not listed. P. 12 cites "Ex. 19." The exhibit list ends at Ex. 17. 6. Tense. The Statement of Facts is past tense throughout except ¶¶ 9 and 14, which are present tense. Mechanical checklist | Item | Status | Note | |---|---|---| | Caption matches docket | CONFIRM | Case number reads 3:25-cv-04417; verify against the docket, not against this document | | Signature block with bar number | Pass | Present, p. 14 | | Date on signature block | Fail | Blank | | Certificate of service | Fail | Not present | | Table of contents and authorities | CONFIRM | Absent. Required in this district only over a page threshold [CONFIRM - local rule] | | Line numbering | Pass | Present and continuous | | Exhibit labeling | Fail | See conflict 5 | | House rule: short names bolded at first use | Fail | No short form defined for BetaCorp | Ledger. Dates: April 11 (1 use), April 14 (2), March 3 (4), May 22 (2), June 14 (1). Figures: $842,000 (1), $842,600 (2), $97/unit (3), 12,000 documents (2). Names: BetaCorp (31), Beta Corp. (2), BetaCorp Industries, Inc. (3), Acme Holdings (9), Acme (24). Cross-references: 11 total, 10 resolve, 1 does not (conflict 4). Not checked in this pass. Whether any citation is real, correctly formatted, or supports the proposition it sits under. Whether the authorities are still good law. Whether any fact stated is true or supported by the record. Whether the argument works. A clean conflict list means the document agrees with itself, not that it is right. --- Assumptions I made. That the caption controls the correct legal name of the defendant [safe]. That "Ex. 19" on p. 12 refers to a real exhibit that was cut from the list rather than a typo for Ex. 9 [verify: both are plausible and the choice changes the fix]. That ¶¶ 9 and 14 were meant to be past tense like the rest [safe]. Where this is weakest. Two entries may be false positives. Conflict 1 assumes one letter; if BetaCorp sent letters on both April 11 and April 14, the document is correct and the "conflict" is two events. Conflict 2 assumes $842,000 and $842,600 describe the same quantity; if one is the judgment and one is the invoice total before a credit, both numbers are right and the fix would introduce an error. What only you can decide. Which value wins in each conflict. On the damages figure, the document says both, and I can tell you which appears more often but not which is true. The argument on p. 9 uses $842,000 and the declaration uses $842,600, so one of them is wrong in a filing that goes to a judge who will add them up; changing the argument to match the declaration is the safer move, and changing the declaration is not available to you. Second call that is yours: whether the missing Section II.C cross-reference gets deleted or restored. Deleting the sentence is a two-minute fix; the question it raises is whether the mitigation argument was cut on purpose and something else in the brief still depends on it. What would make this materially better. Ranked by impact: (1) The Ochoa declaration, which settles the damages figure and is the conflict most likely to be noticed. (2) The docket entry for the case number and the current exhibit list. (3) The judge's standing order, which is the only thing that resolves the table-of-authorities and courtesy-copy items.

Why this prompt is built the way it is

## Framework 1. **Extract, do not read.** Every date, dollar figure, party name and variant, defined term, section and exhibit number, and cross-reference, each with every place it appears. 2. **Run the ledger against itself.** The same event on two dates, a number that changes between the body and a table, a party called three things, a term used before it is defined, a reference to a section that moved. 3. **Check the mechanics the forum actually rejects on,** and mark anything unverifiable from the text as needing the local rule rather than asserting it. 4. **Name what this pass did not check,** so a clean report is not mistaken for a clean bill of health.