Source: cases/STRICT-SKIPPED.md
# `check --strict` — Unwaived Genuine Guard Flags (`STRICT-SKIPPED.md`) Per `neov2/specs/argon2_strict18.md`: 1. Guard flags (`G2-recital`, `G3-cited-case`, `G5-no-fact`) may be waived with `? guard: <code> <reason>` **only** when the flagged text really is what the guard says it is not. 2. Quote text, kinds, and offsets must not be changed (`python3 neov2/tools/casedsl.py quotes-equal 9d63399 neov2/cases` must report `298 files compared with 9d63399, 0 differ`). Of the 18 strict errors in `9d63399`: - **10 `v1.1: scope 'dissent'` errors** were cleared by reading the opinion text via `casedsl.py opinions` and `casedsl.py text`, declaring accurate controlling and concurrence/dissent spans with `by <Author>`, and replacing `scope dissent` with `by <dissent-opinion-id>`: - `neov2/cases/18usc1341/f2d-664-161-us-v-galloway.case` (`maj` by Sprecher `@0..17522`, `conc` by Cudahy `@17522..18064`, `dis` by Swygert `@18064..31318`) - `neov2/cases/18usc1341/f3d-29-112-us-v-henry.case` (`maj` by Nygaard `@0..18391`, `dis` by Weis `@18391..31152`) - `neov2/cases/18usc1343/us-544-349-pasquantino-v-us.case` (`maj` by Thomas `@0..41458`, `dis` by Ginsburg `@41458..60000`) - `neov2/cases/18usc922/f3d-422-207-us-v-moye.case` (`maj` by Gregory `@0..23894`, `dis` by Hamilton `@23894..35922`) - `neov2/cases/18usc922/f3d-481-882-us-v-nance.case` (`maj` by Gibbons `@0..18468`, `dis` by Holschuh `@18468..40933`) - `neov2/cases/18usc922/us-544-385-small-v-us.case` (`maj` by Breyer `@0..15512`, `dis` by Thomas `@15512..41985`) - `neov2/cases/18usc924/us-524-125-muscarello-v-us.case` (`maj` by Breyer `@0..25602`, `dis` by Ginsburg `@25602..50369`) - `neov2/cases/18usc924/us-549-47-lopez-v-gonzales.case` (`maj` by Souter `@0..22680`, `dis` by Thomas `@22680..38207`) - `neov2/cases/18usc924/us-556-568-dean-v-us.case` (`maj` by Roberts `@0..15441`, `stevens` by Stevens `@15441..27461`, `breyer` by Breyer `@27461..31989`) - `neov2/cases/18usc924/us-572-65-rosemond-v-us.case` (`maj` by Kagan `@0..31006, @47097..52660`, `alito` by Alito `@31006..47097, @52660..53852`) - **2 false-positive guard flags** (matching the 2 false positives on older files in `neov2/qa/guards-report.md` lines 83–85) were waived with `? guard: <code> <reason>`: - `neov2/cases/15usc1125/f3d-921-1364-versatop-v-georgia-expo.case:38` (`G2-recital`: party's summary-judgment concession on the remaining *Sleekcraft* factors and the absence of evidence of actual confusion) - `neov2/cases/21usc841/us-569-184-moncrieffe-v-holder.case:49` (`G3-cited-case`: Georgia prosecutorial practice under the comparator state statute of conviction, citing *Taylor* and *Hadden* to show that Georgia prosecutes small-amount non-remunerative marijuana offenses) --- ## 6 Unwaived Genuine Guard Flags (Left Unwaived to Preserve `quotes-equal` = `0 differ`) The remaining **6 guard flags** are the exact 6 genuine guard hits on the pre-Flash frozen files catalogued in `neov2/qa/guards-report.md` lines 83–88 (`4 genuine` `G2-recital`, `1 genuine` `G3-cited-case`, and `1 genuine gap` `G5-no-fact`). Because each flagged quote (or missing fact quote) is a genuine defect in the frozen v1 quote selection inside an otherwise valid holding block, waiving it with `? guard:` would be false, deleting the entire block would remove a genuine holding of the case, and removing/trimming/adding a single `fact` quote is forbidden by the `quotes-equal` (`0 differ`) constraint: ### 1. `neov2/cases/15usc1/f3d-117-1137-systemcare-v-wang-laboratories.case:24` (`G2-recital`) - **Flag**: `guard[G2-recital] fact quote opens with the lower court's ruling: 'the district court granted summary judgment in favor of Wang because S'` - **Opinion text (`@3393..3576` in `/f3d/117/1137-01`)**: > `the district court granted summary judgment in favor of Wang because Systemcare failed to “establish a conspiracy between at least two parties” to impose a tying arrangement on Wang’s` - **Why not waived or deleted**: The quote is genuinely procedural history (the reversed district court summary-judgment ruling), as noted in the file's own `misfit` line 48 (`"one is procedural history — the district court's summary judgment for want of a second conspirator, tagged [cuts-against] although it is a reversed lower-court ruling, not a fact about the agreement"`) and in `neov2/qa/guards-report.md` line 83 (`lower-court ruling`). It sits inside the case's primary `element agreement : satisfied [law]` block (lines 20–30), which also carries the substantive `fact @2464..2622`; deleting the single `fact @3393..3576` line would cause `quotes-equal` to report `1 differ`, and deleting the whole `element agreement` block would delete the en banc court's central holding. ### 2. `neov2/cases/18usc1341/f3d-29-112-us-v-henry.case:61` (`G3-cited-case`) - **Flag**: `guard[G3-cited-case] fact quote appears to describe another case (cites 864 F.2d 1056): 'Bid-rigging by public officials typically results in a government enti'` - **Opinion text (`@16659..17120` in `/f3d/29/0112-01`)**: > `Bid-rigging by public officials typically results in a government entity paying more than it otherwise would have for goods or services, see, e.g., United States v. Osser, 864 F.2d 1056, 1062-63 (3d Cir.1988), United States v. Asher, 854 F.2d 1483, 1495-96 (3d Cir.1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 1029, 109 S.Ct. 836, 102 L.Ed.2d 969 (1989), but the Commission allegedly made money here, receiving a higher interest rate on its deposits as a result of the scheme.` - **Why not waived or deleted**: Note that the `v1.1: scope 'dissent'` error on this file (former line 45) **was** fixed by declaring `opinion maj : majority by Nygaard @0..18391 controlling` and `opinion dis : dissent by Weis @18391..31152` and setting `by dis`. On line 61 (`element property : not-reached`), the first 333 characters (`@16659..16992`) state a general proposition about typical bid-rigging cases resting on *Osser* and *Asher* (`neov2/qa/guards-report.md` line 85: `1 genuine (a generalisation resting on a precedent)`), while only the trailing clause (`@16998..17120`: `"the Commission allegedly made money here, receiving a higher interest rate on its deposits as a result of the scheme."`) states the allegation of this case. Trimming `@16659..17120` to `@16998..17120` would change the quote offset and cause `quotes-equal` to report `1 differ`. ### 3. `neov2/cases/18usc1343/us-605-114-kousisis-v-us.case:28` (`G2-recital`) - **Flag**: `guard[G2-recital] fact quote opens with a party filing or moving: 'Alpha and Kousisis moved for a judgment of acquittal, arguing that bec'` - **Opinion text (`@15636..15814` in `/us/605/114`)**: > `Alpha and Kousisis moved for a judgment of acquittal, arguing that because their paintwork met PennDOT's expectations, PennDOT had received the full economic beneft of its bargain.` - **Why not waived or deleted**: The quote genuinely recounts the defendants' Rule 29 motion for judgment of acquittal and their legal contention (`neov2/qa/guards-report.md` line 83: `"moved for acquittal"`), whereas the underlying factual premise (`"PennDOT, satisfed with Alpha's paint and repair work, paid it accordingly."`) is already quoted on the preceding line (`fact @15320..15386`). Removing `fact @15636..15814` would cause `quotes-equal` to report `1 differ`, and the block (`element money-or-property : satisfied [proved]`) is the sole block in the file. ### 4. `neov2/cases/18usc1962/f-supp-2d-118-392-goldfine-v-sichenzia.case:76` (`G5-no-fact`) - **Flag**: `guard[G5-no-fact] element conduct is held satisfied [pleaded] on this case's allegations or evidence but quotes no fact` - **Opinion text (`@29134..32728` in `/f-supp-2d/118/0392-01`)**: > `[32254] Plaintiffs fail to set forth any facts to show that most of the defendants were leaders, managers or directors of the SAC enterprise. Reading the allegations of the complaint most generously to the Plaintiffs, there are allegations sufficient to charge Michael and Lisa Sichenzia and Patrick Cottrell with leading, running, managing or directing any of the alleged enterprise. But there is no allegation that the other Defendants were leaders or managers of the enterprise.` - **Why not waived or deleted**: The block (`element conduct : satisfied [pleaded]` for `party p2`, Michael and Lisa Sichenzia and Patrick Cottrell) records a genuine holding of the opinion (`@29134` heading and `@32388..32630` holding), so the block should not be deleted. However, as noted in the file's own `gloss` (line 82), `misfit` (line 164), and `neov2/qa/guards-report.md` line 88 (`genuine gap (satisfied [pleaded], held quote only)`), the block quotes only `rule` and `held` and omits a `fact` quote from the opinion's earlier Background narrative (`@3800..6928`) describing the principals' role in the SAC enterprise. Adding a `fact` quote from the Background section would cause `quotes-equal` to report `1 differ`. ### 5. `neov2/cases/18usc1962/us-533-158-cedric-kushner-v-king.case:41` (`G2-recital`) - **Flag**: `guard[G2-recital] fact quote states the question presented: 'This case concerns a claim that a corporate employee is the “person” a'` - **Opinion text (`@8039..8148` in `/us/533/0158-01`)**: > `This case concerns a claim that a corporate employee is the “person” and the corporation is the “enterprise.”` - **Why not waived or deleted**: The quote frames the nature of the legal claim to distinguish Second Circuit precedent (*Riverwoods*), and is classified in `neov2/qa/guards-report.md` line 83 as a genuine `G2-recital` hit (`a question presented`). The block (`element enterprise : satisfied [pleaded]`, lines 38–46) already carries the factual allegation `fact @1348..1421 [supports] | the president and sole shareholder of Don King Productions, a corporation`, and is one of the case's two core holdings; removing `fact @8039..8148` would cause `quotes-equal` to report `1 differ`. ### 6. `neov2/cases/21usc841/us-500-453-chapman-v-united-states.case:37` (`G2-recital`) - **Flag**: `guard[G2-recital] fact quote opens with a party filing or moving: 'Petitioners appealed, claiming that the blotter paper is only a carrie'` - **Opinion text (`@1325..1498` in `/us/500/0453-01`)**: > `Petitioners appealed, claiming that the blotter paper is only a carrier medium, and that its weight should not be included in the weight of the drug for sentencing purposes.` - **Why not waived or deleted**: As noted in the file's own `misfit` line 61 (`"The only fact under the due-process block is the petitioners' contention, to which polarity does not really apply"`) and in `neov2/qa/guards-report.md` line 83 (`"Petitioners appealed"`), this quote is genuinely a procedural recital of petitioners' appellate contention inside the Fifth Amendment due-process block (`defense x-due-process-arbitrary-sentence : not-satisfied [law]`). Removing `fact @1325..1498` would cause `quotes-equal` to report `1 differ`, and deleting the block would remove the Court's constitutional holding.