Write the rule statement three ways and pick the winner
This page lists three turns, the messages you send to the AI one after another in the same chat, and then a check of the answer. Keep it open next to your chat. Each turn shows the next thing to paste, with the values you entered already filled in. Nothing is sent from this page, and your conversation stays in the AI tool you are using.
The question the court has to answer, stated the way the order would state it.
Who you act for and the outcome the rule needs to produce.
The court whose formulation binds, and whose substantive law applies if different.
The cases and statutes you have, on both sides. Paste the operative language if you have it.
The stage and the audience. A district judge will accept a formulation an appellate panel will not.
Watch for these throughout
The model produces fluent rule statements attached to citations that do not support them. Read the cited pages yourself before adopting any formulation.
A rule that overreaches wins the motion and loses the appeal. Test every version against the worst facts in your own case, not just the best.
Some courts have expressly rejected sliding-scale or totality formulations in this area. Confirm the controlling court's posture before proposing one.
A rule that cannot be squared with en banc or Supreme Court authority is a non-starter no matter how well it fits your facts.
Do not paste privileged case assessments or client-confidential facts unless your firm's AI policy and the engagement terms allow it.