Source: law/R5-CIVIL.md
# Round 5 civil-law audit and handoff Worktree: `/tmp/neov2-r5`; corpus: `/home/mma/repos/neochart/neochartdocroot` (read only); isolated cache `/tmp/neov2-r5-civil-cache`. Read the root task spec, QA2 spot-check, QA1, actual LAW files, canonical statutes and the cited opinion passages. Research date 2026-11-10. This records author repair and verification, not an independent QA2 sign-off. ## Audit matrix | Catalogue / failure class | Decision and concrete change | Evidence | |---|---|---| | 29 USC 623: omitted f(1)/(2) exceptions for agency/union/advertising | Conditional `f-exceptions` gate on all (a)/(b)/(c)/(e) routes, governed by `f-route`; BFOQ, foreign-law, seniority/benefits and RFOA retain their existing IDs. RFOA cannot excuse intentional treatment or an age-limited advertisement. Good cause remains discharge/discipline-only. | Canonical f(1) 3195..3757 and full f(2) 3758..5287, split into exact paragraphs; [OLRC §623](https://uscode.house.gov/us/usc/t29/s623/) and [current 29 CFR 1625.7](https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-29/subtitle-B/chapter-XIV/part-1625/subpart-A/section-1625.7). | | 623: incomplete seniority/benefit summary and wrong attachment | Anchor full f(2), distinguish its seniority and benefits alternatives and hiring/retirement limits. Move Teufel's valid pension-compliance rule from `benefit-plan` to `pension-safeguards`, which it actually supports. | f(2)(A)/(B) and (i)(4); unchanged `/f3d/887/0799-01 @10243..10328`. | | 623: missing pension prohibition | New `pension-accrual` claim, independent `covered-plan-actor`, establishment/maintenance element, DB/DC alternatives and conditional subsection-i safeguards. No advertiser status requirement. | Canonical (i)(1) 6489..7113 and (i)(4) 9316..9531; [OLRC](https://uscode.house.gov/us/usc/t29/s623/). | | 623: missing public-safety/retirement exceptions | Add complete (j) anchors and conditional government/occupation/age/plan test; add §631(c) executive-retirement cross-reference with age, two-year service, benefit and annuity-adjustment conditions. | Canonical (j) 19308..20648; complete local §631; [OLRC §630](https://uscode.house.gov/us/usc/t29/s630/), [§631](https://uscode.house.gov/us/usc/t29/s631/), [1996 Act pp. 3009–23 to 3009–25](https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-104publ208/pdf/PLAW-104publ208.pdf). Testing condition remains conditional on the regulatory issuance trigger; no finding that it occurred. | | 623: unlabelled/universal applicant exclusion | Preserve `impact-applicant-limit` ID, change LAW kind to judicial coverage `element`, remove unconditional claim negation, add circuit-conditioned `applicant-coverage` constraint. | Existing Kleber majority pin remains 2643..2746; [official en banc opinion](https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ca7-17-01206/pdf/USCOURTS-ca7-17-01206-1.pdf), pp. 2–5. Seventh and Eleventh Circuit holdings are not made universal. | | 623: c(2)/(3) unanchored | Existing `union-practice` ID becomes alternatives (`or`) with separate exact statutory anchors for each paragraph. | Canonical c(1), c(2), c(3), checked against [OLRC](https://uscode.house.gov/us/usc/t29/s623/). | | 623: reviewer case-name error and unsupported protocol caveat | Preserve the valid Westmoreland causation pin; document QA1's Pelcha typo. Anchor protocol production and ultimate-persuasion stages in the same opinion. Retaliation formula now also represents its agency/union actors and claimant-class conditions. | `/f3d/924/0718-01 @8471..9075`, new 10698..11145 and 11146..11651; [official Westmoreland](https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/181600.P.pdf), pp. 6–8. Retaliation actor rule is statutory (d). | | 15 USC 1125: omitted a(2) and constitutional limit | Add `covered-defendant` to all four claims, exact a(2) text, and distinct conditional judicial `state-immunity`. | Canonical 990..1370; [OLRC](https://uscode.house.gov/us/usc/t15/s1125/); new College Savings Bank majority pin `/us/527/0666-01 @40395..40820`, checked against [official report](https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-527/pdf/USREPORTS-527-666.pdf). | | 1125: judicial territorial element existed only in gloss | Add `domestic-use` to all formulas, label it judicial, retain statutory hook and official external annotation. | Local 178..194; [Abitron majority](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-1043_7648.pdf). No fabricated local post-corpus pin. | | 1125: wrong case identity / doctrinal classification | No wrong LAW rule pin found. Document QA1's wrong court: VersaTop is Federal Circuit applying Ninth Circuit law. Display judicial origin of deception, materiality, commercial-interest and proximate-cause tests. | [Official VersaTop](https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ca13-18-01208/pdf/USCOURTS-ca13-18-01208-0.pdf); existing canonical Genus, Louisiana-Pacific and Lexmark pins retained. | | 42 USC 1981: missing judicial harassment requirements | New `hostile-environment` plus a conditional `hostile-route` constraint elaborates the existing employment variant. Severity OR pervasiveness, subjective/objective detriment and proper employer attribution are required. | Statutory conditions 691..788; new `/f3d/863/0259-01 @4811..5942`, [official Castleberry](https://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/163131p.pdf), pp. 5–8. Not Boxill's separate equal-protection analysis or Bryant's punitive test. | | 1981: falsely unanchored proof protocol / statutory-vs-judicial confusion | Anchor existing Nelson proof stages; label judicial intent, causation, retaliation and remedial-route requirements; retain Comcast ultimate rule and every ID. | New Nelson 5791..6260, 6261..6786, 6787..6935; [official Nelson](https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/19/03/181439P.pdf); [official Comcast](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-1171_4425.pdf). | | 1981: overbroad displayed scope | Display contract/retaliation scope in the title; separately pin and identify the noncontract clauses rather than claiming full statutory decomposition. This accompanies substantive harassment/protocol repairs, not a substitute for them. | Complete canonical §1981 and new 207..499 noncontract-clause anchor; [OLRC](https://uscode.house.gov/us/usc/t42/s1981/). Existing own-contract, CBOCS retaliation, Boxill route, Bryant remedies/timing pins remain attached to their actual holdings. | ## Compatibility and verification All existing LAW element IDs remain present. The leader expressly widened the write scope for one CASE metadata correction: Kleber `defense impact-applicant-limit` becomes `element impact-applicant-limit`, and its misfit description says “LAW coverage-element ID.” Its ID, satisfied holding, `[law]` basis, posture, result, fact polarity and every quote are unchanged. Only `cases/29usc623/VARIANTS.md` was regenerated. The current generator also corrects its previously stale absent-fact aggregate from zero to three; no CASE fact was changed. Commands use `NEOV2_CORPUS` and the isolated cache above: - `lawdsl.py check` on all three owned LAW files: **3 files, 75 statutory quotes, 33 block case-rule quotes, 0 errors**. It additionally validates five newly anchored protocol rule spans (two Westmoreland, three Nelson), which its printed quote counter does not include. - `casedsl.py check cases/29usc623 cases/15usc1125 cases/42usc1981`: **30 files, 204 quotes, 0 errors, no kind warnings**. - `casedsl.py quotes-equal b662728 cases/29usc623`: **10 files compared, 0 differ**. - Existing `test_lawdsl.py`: **6 tests pass**. Existing tool code emits ResourceWarnings for unclosed test reads; no test failure. Tools are outside this write scope. - Existing `LawCatalogueTest.test_vocabulary_and_case_issue_coverage`: **pass**, checking all catalogue symbols and CASE IDs. - `git diff --check` on owned paths: **pass**. No corpus, tool, shared NOTES, memory, database, commit or deployment writes were performed. Leader owns database reload, full integration validation and publication. ## Known weak spots for leader's shared NOTES - **ADEA:** full (l)-(n) benefits coordination and detailed hybrid-plan actuarial/conversion claims are excluded in the displayed scope; i(1), j and §631(c) are now actually represented. A case invoking public-safety testing requires confirming the regulatory trigger and local law. Federal-sector §633a, foreign-control/citizenship application and full remedies are not exhaustively modeled. Circuit-dependent applicant/impact doctrines require controlling-law checks. - **Lanham Act:** precise domestic-use scenarios after Abitron, state waiver/officer-relief routes, nominative/expressive use, false endorsement and remedy-specific proof remain fact/circuit dependent. Explicit (a) scope still excludes importation, dilution and cybersquatting. - **Section 1981:** noncontract equality clauses and alienage remain expressly outside the formulas. Harassment attribution, retaliation causation, immunity, remedies and limitations need case-specific application. Older proof frameworks are preserved only subject to Comcast. - All legal verification here is targeted primary-source comparison; it is not a comprehensive current citator history or independent QA2 approval.