Source: qa/fable-cases-Argon2.md
# Argon2 QA Review: Fable-Authored `.case` Sample (18 Cases Across All Fable-Authored Statutes)
- **Auditor:** Argon2 (`claude-opus-4-6`)
- **Author Reviewed:** Fable (`claude-opus-4-6`)
- **Date:** 2026-11-10
- **Task Spec:** [`neov2/specs/argon2_fable_sample.md`](file:///home/mma/repos/neochart-wt-argon2/neov2/specs/argon2_fable_sample.md)
- **Target Branch Audited:** `master` (`1203c16`) compared against `origin/fable2-partial-review` (`3103ac1`)
- **Evidence Standard:** Every claim is backed by a command and pasted output.
---
## 1. Eligible Fable-Authored Pool (`neov2/qa/review-status.tsv`)
Across the 15 statutes in `neov2/cases/`, Fable authored **105 `.case` files** across **9 statutes** (`15usc1`, `18usc1341`, `18usc1343`, `18usc1962`, `18usc922`, `18usc924`, `21usc841`, `42usc1983`, `42usc2000e-2`). The other 6 statutes (`15usc1125`, `15usc78j`, `42usc1981`, `21usc846`, `29usc158`, `29usc623`) contain 0 Fable-authored files (their wave-2 authors are `Astra2` and `Astra4`, audited separately in [`neov2/qa/astra-cases-QA1.md`](file:///home/mma/repos/neochart-wt-argon2/neov2/qa/astra-cases-QA1.md), plus `Flash*` proposals).
Of the 105 Fable-authored `.case` files on `master`, **97 files** have either no `PASS` in [`neov2/qa/review-status.tsv`](file:///home/mma/repos/neochart-wt-argon2/neov2/qa/review-status.tsv) (61 files: 53 unreviewed + 8 with only `FIX` verdicts) or a stale `PASS` (`content_changed_after_review == 'yes'`, 36 files); only 8 files had a fresh `PASS` (`content_changed_after_review == 'no'`).
```text
$ python3 - <<'PY'
import sys, glob
from collections import defaultdict
sys.path.insert(0, "neov2/tools")
import review_status
lines = [l.rstrip('\n').split('\t') for l in open('neov2/qa/review-status.tsv')]
hdr = lines[0]
rows = [dict(zip(hdr, l)) for l in lines[1:]]
by_file = defaultdict(list)
for r in rows:
by_file[r['case_file']].append(r)
all_cases = sorted(glob.glob("neov2/cases/*/*.case"))
fable_cases = []
for c in all_cases:
law = c.split('/')[2]
alias, _model = review_status.case_author(c)
if alias.startswith('Fable'):
fable_cases.append((law, c, alias))
no_pass = [(law, c, alias) for law, c, alias in fable_cases if not any(r['verdict'] == 'PASS' for r in by_file[c])]
stale_pass = [(law, c, alias) for law, c, alias in fable_cases if any(r['verdict'] == 'PASS' for r in by_file[c]) and not any(r['verdict'] == 'PASS' and r['content_changed_after_review'] == 'no' for r in by_file[c])]
fresh_pass = [(law, c, alias) for law, c, alias in fable_cases if any(r['verdict'] == 'PASS' and r['content_changed_after_review'] == 'no' for r in by_file[c])]
print(f"Total Fable-authored .case files: {len(fable_cases)}")
print(f" No PASS (unreviewed or FIX-only): {len(no_pass)}")
print(f" Stale PASS (content_changed_after_review == 'yes'): {len(stale_pass)}")
print(f" Fresh PASS (content_changed_after_review == 'no'): {len(fresh_pass)}")
print(f" Total eligible (no PASS or stale PASS): {len(no_pass) + len(stale_pass)}")
for law, c, alias in sorted(no_pass + stale_pass):
status = "unreviewed" if not by_file[c] else ", ".join(f"{r['reviewer']}:{r['verdict']}(stale={r['content_changed_after_review']})" for r in by_file[c])
print(f" {law:12s}\t{c}\t{alias}\t{status}")
PY
Total Fable-authored .case files: 105
No PASS (unreviewed or FIX-only): 61
Stale PASS (content_changed_after_review == 'yes'): 36
Fresh PASS (content_changed_after_review == 'no'): 8
Total eligible (no PASS or stale PASS): 97
15usc1 neov2/cases/15usc1/f-supp-3d-351-698-in-re-interest-rate-swaps.case Fable QA2:PASS(stale=yes)
15usc1 neov2/cases/15usc1/f-supp-864-1175-levine-v-central-florida-medical.case Fable unreviewed
15usc1 neov2/cases/15usc1/f2d-361-874-ford-v-websters-auto-sales.case Fable QA2:PASS(stale=yes)
15usc1 neov2/cases/15usc1/f2d-589-451-harvey-v-fearless-farris.case Fable unreviewed
15usc1 neov2/cases/15usc1/f2d-845-1367-us-v-cooperative-theatres.case Fable QA2:PASS(stale=yes)
15usc1 neov2/cases/15usc1/f3d-117-1137-systemcare-v-wang-laboratories.case Fable unreviewed
15usc1 neov2/cases/15usc1/f3d-496-403-tunica-web-advertising-v-tunica-casino-operators.case Fable QA2:FIX(stale=yes), QA1:PASS(stale=yes)
15usc1 neov2/cases/15usc1/us-547-1-texaco-v-dagher.case Fable QA1:PASS(stale=yes)
15usc1 neov2/cases/15usc1/us-551-877-leegin-v-psks.case Fable unreviewed
15usc1 neov2/cases/15usc1/us-560-183-american-needle-v-nfl.case Fable QA2:PASS(stale=yes), QA1:PASS(stale=yes)
18usc1341 neov2/cases/18usc1341/f-supp-2d-912-404-southern-snow-v-snowizard.case Fable unreviewed
18usc1341 neov2/cases/18usc1341/f-supp-725-446-us-v-granberry.case Fable unreviewed
18usc1341 neov2/cases/18usc1341/f2d-386-132-lustiger-v-us.case Fable unreviewed
18usc1341 neov2/cases/18usc1341/f2d-664-161-us-v-galloway.case Fable unreviewed
18usc1341 neov2/cases/18usc1341/f3d-231-471-us-v-chung-lo.case Fable unreviewed
18usc1341 neov2/cases/18usc1341/f3d-29-112-us-v-henry.case Fable QA2:FIX(stale=yes)
18usc1341 neov2/cases/18usc1341/f3d-628-927-us-v-boone.case Fable unreviewed
18usc1341 neov2/cases/18usc1341/us-527-1-neder-v-us.case Fable unreviewed
18usc1341 neov2/cases/18usc1341/us-557-29-nijhawan-v-holder.case Fable unreviewed
18usc1343 neov2/cases/18usc1343/f-supp-2d-562-719-us-v-jefferson.case Fable unreviewed
18usc1343 neov2/cases/18usc1343/f-supp-957-39-us-v-sancho.case Fable unreviewed
18usc1343 neov2/cases/18usc1343/f2d-829-286-new-england-data-services-v-becher.case Fable unreviewed
18usc1343 neov2/cases/18usc1343/f2d-844-36-us-v-evans.case Fable unreviewed
18usc1343 neov2/cases/18usc1343/f3d-333-1264-us-v-hasson.case Fable unreviewed
18usc1343 neov2/cases/18usc1343/f3d-59-517-us-v-brumley.case Fable unreviewed
18usc1343 neov2/cases/18usc1343/f3d-923-390-us-v-baker.case Fable QA2:FIX(stale=yes)
18usc1343 neov2/cases/18usc1343/us-544-349-pasquantino-v-us.case Fable unreviewed
18usc1343 neov2/cases/18usc1343/us-557-110-yeager-v-us.case Fable unreviewed
18usc1343 neov2/cases/18usc1343/us-605-114-kousisis-v-us.case Fable QA2:FIX(stale=yes)
18usc1962 neov2/cases/18usc1962/f-supp-2d-118-392-goldfine-v-sichenzia.case Fable QA1:PASS(stale=yes)
18usc1962 neov2/cases/18usc1962/f-supp-2d-926-1143-negrete-v-allianz-life.case Fable QA2:PASS(stale=yes)
18usc1962 neov2/cases/18usc1962/f-supp-567-1146-seville-industrial-machinery-v-southmost-machinery.case Fable unreviewed
18usc1962 neov2/cases/18usc1962/f2d-624-1118-united-states-v-weisman.case Fable QA2:PASS(stale=yes)
18usc1962 neov2/cases/18usc1962/f3d-490-575-united-states-v-calabrese.case Fable QA2:FIX(stale=yes)
18usc1962 neov2/cases/18usc1962/f3d-660-346-crest-construction-ii-v-doe.case Fable unreviewed
18usc1962 neov2/cases/18usc1962/f3d-80-1293-chang-v-chen.case Fable QA2:PASS(stale=yes)
18usc1962 neov2/cases/18usc1962/us-507-170-reves-v-ernst-young.case Fable unreviewed
18usc1962 neov2/cases/18usc1962/us-510-249-now-v-scheidler.case Fable QA2:FIX(stale=yes)
18usc1962 neov2/cases/18usc1962/us-533-158-cedric-kushner-v-king.case Fable QA1:PASS(stale=yes)
18usc1962 neov2/cases/18usc1962/us-556-938-boyle-v-united-states.case Fable QA2:FIX(stale=yes), QA1:PASS(stale=yes)
18usc922 neov2/cases/18usc922/f-supp-2d-28-805-us-v-campbell.case Fable unreviewed
18usc922 neov2/cases/18usc922/f-supp-3d-162-1106-us-v-dunlap.case Fable unreviewed
18usc922 neov2/cases/18usc922/f2d-899-543-us-v-cassidy.case Fable unreviewed
18usc922 neov2/cases/18usc922/f3d-32-867-us-v-rhodes.case Fable unreviewed
18usc922 neov2/cases/18usc922/f3d-41-25-us-v-rogers.case Fable unreviewed
18usc922 neov2/cases/18usc922/f3d-422-207-us-v-moye.case Fable QA2:PASS(stale=yes)
18usc922 neov2/cases/18usc922/f3d-481-882-us-v-nance.case Fable unreviewed
18usc922 neov2/cases/18usc922/f3d-57-516-us-v-kitchen.case Fable unreviewed
18usc922 neov2/cases/18usc922/f3d-592-681-hernandez-v-holder.case Fable unreviewed
18usc922 neov2/cases/18usc922/f3d-683-1314-us-v-cochran.case Fable unreviewed
18usc922 neov2/cases/18usc922/f3d-697-592-us-v-spears.case Fable unreviewed
18usc922 neov2/cases/18usc922/f4th-142-308-us-v-kimble.case Fable unreviewed
18usc922 neov2/cases/18usc922/us-519-172-old-chief-v-us.case Fable unreviewed
18usc922 neov2/cases/18usc922/us-544-385-small-v-us.case Fable unreviewed
18usc924 neov2/cases/18usc924/f-supp-966-483-davis-v-beeler.case Fable unreviewed
18usc924 neov2/cases/18usc924/f2d-890-1363-us-v-ocampo.case Fable unreviewed
18usc924 neov2/cases/18usc924/f3d-116-1353-us-v-holland.case Fable QA2:PASS(stale=yes)
18usc924 neov2/cases/18usc924/f3d-319-177-us-v-phipps.case Fable QA2:FIX(stale=yes)
18usc924 neov2/cases/18usc924/f3d-640-412-us-v-alverio-melendez.case Fable unreviewed
18usc924 neov2/cases/18usc924/us-516-137-bailey-v-us.case Fable unreviewed
18usc924 neov2/cases/18usc924/us-524-125-muscarello-v-us.case Fable unreviewed
18usc924 neov2/cases/18usc924/us-549-47-lopez-v-gonzales.case Fable unreviewed
18usc924 neov2/cases/18usc924/us-556-568-dean-v-us.case Fable unreviewed
18usc924 neov2/cases/18usc924/us-572-65-rosemond-v-us.case Fable unreviewed
21usc841 neov2/cases/21usc841/f-supp-2d-427-894-us-v-person.case Fable unreviewed
21usc841 neov2/cases/21usc841/f-supp-3d-225-274-us-v-tiangco.case Fable QA2:FIX(stale=yes)
21usc841 neov2/cases/21usc841/f2d-701-1349-united-states-v-vera.case Fable unreviewed
21usc841 neov2/cases/21usc841/f3d-20-229-united-states-v-vincent.case Fable unreviewed
21usc841 neov2/cases/21usc841/f3d-235-565-us-v-hishaw.case Fable QA2:PASS(stale=yes)
21usc841 neov2/cases/21usc841/f3d-57-516-us-v-kitchen.case Fable QA1:PASS(stale=yes)
21usc841 neov2/cases/21usc841/f3d-767-453-us-v-teran-salas.case Fable QA2:PASS(stale=yes)
21usc841 neov2/cases/21usc841/f4th-142-259-us-v-suncar.case Fable unreviewed
21usc841 neov2/cases/21usc841/us-500-453-chapman-v-united-states.case Fable QA2:PASS(stale=yes)
21usc841 neov2/cases/21usc841/us-569-184-moncrieffe-v-holder.case Fable QA1:PASS(stale=yes)
42usc1983 neov2/cases/42usc1983/f-supp-2d-367-1175-dye-v-city-of-warren.case Fable QA1:FIX(stale=yes), QA1:PASS(stale=yes)
42usc1983 neov2/cases/42usc1983/f-supp-567-1159-thompson-v-community-action.case Fable QA2:PASS(stale=yes)
42usc1983 neov2/cases/42usc1983/f-supp-772-583-kamenesh-v-city-of-miami.case Fable unreviewed
42usc1983 neov2/cases/42usc1983/f2d-628-1104-dodson-v-polk-county.case Fable QA2:PASS(stale=yes)
42usc1983 neov2/cases/42usc1983/f3d-189-808-calabretta-v-floyd.case Fable QA1:PASS(stale=yes)
42usc1983 neov2/cases/42usc1983/f3d-475-645-johnson-v-caudill.case Fable QA2:PASS(stale=yes)
42usc1983 neov2/cases/42usc1983/f3d-813-938-henderson-v-glanz.case Fable unreviewed
42usc1983 neov2/cases/42usc1983/f4th-141-417-galloway-v-county-of-nassau.case Fable QA2:PASS(stale=yes)
42usc1983 neov2/cases/42usc1983/us-502-21-hafer-v-melo.case Fable QA1:PASS(stale=yes)
42usc1983 neov2/cases/42usc1983/us-503-1-hudson-v-mcmillian.case Fable QA2:PASS(stale=yes), QA1:PASS(stale=yes)
42usc1983 neov2/cases/42usc1983/us-503-115-collins-v-harker-heights.case Fable unreviewed
42usc1983 neov2/cases/42usc1983/us-526-40-american-manufacturers-v-sullivan.case Fable QA2:PASS(stale=yes), QA1:PASS(stale=yes)
42usc2000e-2 neov2/cases/42usc2000e-2/f-supp-2d-477-41-ginger-v-district-of-columbia.case Fable unreviewed
42usc2000e-2 neov2/cases/42usc2000e-2/f-supp-2d-832-539-glenn-v-raymour.case Fable QA2:PASS(stale=yes)
42usc2000e-2 neov2/cases/42usc2000e-2/f-supp-604-1450-turner-v-barber-scotia-college.case Fable QA1:PASS(stale=yes)
42usc2000e-2 neov2/cases/42usc2000e-2/f-supp-962-1447-breech-v-alabama-power.case Fable QA2:PASS(stale=yes)
42usc2000e-2 neov2/cases/42usc2000e-2/f2d-706-1-costa-v-markey.case Fable QA1:PASS(stale=yes)
42usc2000e-2 neov2/cases/42usc2000e-2/f3d-41-1073-eeoc-v-francis-w-parker-school.case Fable QA2:FIX(stale=yes)
42usc2000e-2 neov2/cases/42usc2000e-2/f3d-527-358-doe-v-cars-protection-plus.case Fable unreviewed
42usc2000e-2 neov2/cases/42usc2000e-2/f3d-858-1307-hiatt-v-colorado-seminary.case Fable QA2:PASS(stale=yes)
42usc2000e-2 neov2/cases/42usc2000e-2/us-509-502-st-marys-honor-center-v-hicks.case Fable QA1:PASS(stale=yes)
42usc2000e-2 neov2/cases/42usc2000e-2/us-510-17-harris-v-forklift-systems.case Fable QA2:PASS(stale=yes)
42usc2000e-2 neov2/cases/42usc2000e-2/us-539-90-desert-palace-v-costa.case Fable QA1:PASS(stale=yes)
```
### Compiler & Strict Guard Check on the 18-File Sample
```text
$ python3 neov2/tools/casedsl.py check --strict \
neov2/cases/15usc1/us-551-877-leegin-v-psks.case \
neov2/cases/15usc1/f-supp-864-1175-levine-v-central-florida-medical.case \
neov2/cases/18usc1341/us-527-1-neder-v-us.case \
neov2/cases/18usc1341/f3d-231-471-us-v-chung-lo.case \
neov2/cases/18usc1343/us-605-114-kousisis-v-us.case \
neov2/cases/18usc1343/f3d-923-390-us-v-baker.case \
neov2/cases/18usc1962/us-507-170-reves-v-ernst-young.case \
neov2/cases/18usc1962/f3d-660-346-crest-construction-ii-v-doe.case \
neov2/cases/18usc922/us-519-172-old-chief-v-us.case \
neov2/cases/18usc922/f-supp-3d-162-1106-us-v-dunlap.case \
neov2/cases/18usc924/us-516-137-bailey-v-us.case \
neov2/cases/18usc924/f2d-890-1363-us-v-ocampo.case \
neov2/cases/21usc841/us-500-453-chapman-v-united-states.case \
neov2/cases/21usc841/f2d-701-1349-united-states-v-vera.case \
neov2/cases/42usc1983/us-503-115-collins-v-harker-heights.case \
neov2/cases/42usc1983/f3d-813-938-henderson-v-glanz.case \
neov2/cases/42usc2000e-2/us-509-502-st-marys-honor-center-v-hicks.case \
neov2/cases/42usc2000e-2/f3d-527-358-doe-v-cars-protection-plus.case
ERROR: neov2/cases/18usc1343/us-605-114-kousisis-v-us.case:28: guard[G2-recital] fact quote opens with a party filing or moving: 'Alpha and Kousisis moved for a judgment of acquittal, arguing that bec' -- a fact is what happened or was alleged, not procedure or doctrine
ERROR: neov2/cases/21usc841/us-500-453-chapman-v-united-states.case:37: guard[G2-recital] fact quote opens with a party filing or moving: 'Petitioners appealed, claiming that the blotter paper is only a carrie' -- a fact is what happened or was alleged, not procedure or doctrine
18 files, 324 quotes, 2 errors
```
---
## Executive Summary of Per-File Verdicts
Sample size: **18 files** (2 files per Fable-authored statute across all 9 Fable-authored laws; **9 SCOTUS** cases + 7 Circuit + 2 District; **7 files** overlapping `origin/fable2-partial-review`). Verdicts below evaluate the current `master` (`1203c16`) version of each file.
| # | Statute | File | Case Citation & Short Name | Strata | Primary Audit Finding | Verdict |
|:---:|---|---|---|:---:|---|:---:|
| 1 | `15usc1` | [`15usc1/us-551-877-leegin-v-psks.case`](file:///home/mma/repos/neochart-wt-argon2/neov2/cases/15usc1/us-551-877-leegin-v-psks.case) | 551 U.S. 877 (2007), *Leegin v. PSKS* | SCOTUS / Branch | **Procedural Recital as Fact**: Line 48 quotes District Court evidentiary exclusion (`@5344..5439`) as `fact [neutral]`; fixed on `origin/fable2-partial-review`. | **FIX** |
| 2 | `15usc1` | [`15usc1/f-supp-864-1175-levine-v-central-florida-medical.case`](file:///home/mma/repos/neochart-wt-argon2/neov2/cases/15usc1/f-supp-864-1175-levine-v-central-florida-medical.case) | 864 F. Supp. 1175 (M.D. Fla. 1994), *Levine v. Central Fla. Med.* | District / Branch | **Route Mismatch & Contention as Fact**: Line 43 uses `route capacity-to-conspire` on arguendo assumption (`_whole`); line 54 quotes plaintiff's legal characterization (`@18005..18133`) as `fact`; both fixed on `origin/fable2-partial-review`. | **FIX** |
| 3 | `18usc1341` | [`18usc1341/us-527-1-neder-v-us.case`](file:///home/mma/repos/neochart-wt-argon2/neov2/cases/18usc1341/us-527-1-neder-v-us.case) | 527 U.S. 1 (1999), *Neder v. United States* | SCOTUS / Branch | **Route Mismatch & Jury-Instruction Recital as Fact**: Line 21 uses `route _procedural` on substantive statutory element holding (`_whole`); line 26 quotes instruction omission (`@4518..4651`) as `fact`; both fixed on `origin/fable2-partial-review`. | **FIX** |
| 4 | `18usc1341` | [`18usc1341/f3d-231-471-us-v-chung-lo.case`](file:///home/mma/repos/neochart-wt-argon2/neov2/cases/18usc1341/f3d-231-471-us-v-chung-lo.case) | 231 F.3d 471 (9th Cir. 2000), *United States v. Chung Lo* | Circuit / Branch | **Route Mismatch**: Line 53 uses `route proof-of-mailing` for third-party County Recorder deed mailings (`route caused-by-third-party`); fixed on `origin/fable2-partial-review`. | **FIX** |
| 5 | `18usc1343` | [`18usc1343/us-605-114-kousisis-v-us.case`](file:///home/mma/repos/neochart-wt-argon2/neov2/cases/18usc1343/us-605-114-kousisis-v-us.case) | 605 U.S. 114 (2025), *Kousisis v. United States* | SCOTUS / Branch | **Motion Recital as Fact (`guard[G2-recital]`)**: Line 28 quotes defendants' Rule 29 motion (`@15918..16098`) as `fact [cuts-against]`; quote removed on `origin/fable2-partial-review`. | **FIX** |
| 6 | `18usc1343` | [`18usc1343/f3d-923-390-us-v-baker.case`](file:///home/mma/repos/neochart-wt-argon2/neov2/cases/18usc1343/f3d-923-390-us-v-baker.case) | 923 F.3d 390 (5th Cir. 2019), *United States v. Baker* | Circuit / Branch | **Lower-Court Holding Tagged as Fact**: Line 44 (`decider court-below`) tags district court sufficiency conclusion (`@29159..29468`) as `fact [supports]`, leaving no `held`; fixed on `origin/fable2-partial-review`. | **FIX** |
| 7 | `18usc1962` | [`18usc1962/us-507-170-reves-v-ernst-young.case`](file:///home/mma/repos/neochart-wt-argon2/neov2/cases/18usc1962/us-507-170-reves-v-ernst-young.case) | 507 U.S. 170 (1993), *Reves v. Ernst & Young* | SCOTUS / Unreviewed | **Sound Extraction**: `result claimant-lost`, `element conduct : not-satisfied [no-evidence]`, `route operation-or-management`, and auditor facts/rules/holding accurately mapped. | **PASS** |
| 8 | `18usc1962` | [`18usc1962/f3d-660-346-crest-construction-ii-v-doe.case`](file:///home/mma/repos/neochart-wt-argon2/neov2/cases/18usc1962/f3d-660-346-crest-construction-ii-v-doe.case) | 660 F.3d 346 (8th Cir. 2011), *Crest Construction II v. Doe* | Circuit / Unreviewed | **Appellate Brief Argument Quoted as Fact**: Line 51 quotes `Pls.' Br. 30` argument (`@18651..18848`) as the sole `fact` in open-ended continuity; line 72 quotes `"Rather, Plaintiffs circularly argue..."` (`@22861..23023`) as `fact`. | **FIX** |
| 9 | `18usc922` | [`18usc922/us-519-172-old-chief-v-us.case`](file:///home/mma/repos/neochart-wt-argon2/neov2/cases/18usc922/us-519-172-old-chief-v-us.case) | 519 U.S. 172 (1997), *Old Chief v. United States* | SCOTUS / Unreviewed | **Sound Extraction**: Properly scoped `role rule-announced`, `result remanded`, `element status.g1 : not-reached`, `scope procedural`, `route proof-of-prior-conviction`; majority/dissent spans cleanly segmented. | **PASS** |
| 10 | `18usc922` | [`18usc922/f-supp-3d-162-1106-us-v-dunlap.case`](file:///home/mma/repos/neochart-wt-argon2/neov2/cases/18usc922/f-supp-3d-162-1106-us-v-dunlap.case) | 162 F. Supp. 3d 1106 (D. Or. 2016), *United States v. Dunlap* | District / Branch | **Verdict Recital & Legal Contention as Fact**: Line 23 quotes prior jury conviction recital (`@2913..3064`) as `fact`; line 32 quotes defendant's legal contention (`@31029..31255`) as `fact`; both fixed on `origin/fable2-partial-review`. | **FIX** |
| 11 | `18usc924` | [`18usc924/us-516-137-bailey-v-us.case`](file:///home/mma/repos/neochart-wt-argon2/neov2/cases/18usc924/us-516-137-bailey-v-us.case) | 516 U.S. 137 (1995), *Bailey v. United States* | SCOTUS / Unreviewed | **Sound Extraction**: Consolidated petitioners Bailey (`p1`) and Robinson (`p2`) cleanly separated with `[no-evidence]` basis, `route active-employment`, and `role rule-announced` remand on `carry`. | **PASS** |
| 12 | `18usc924` | [`18usc924/f2d-890-1363-us-v-ocampo.case`](file:///home/mma/repos/neochart-wt-argon2/neov2/cases/18usc924/f2d-890-1363-us-v-ocampo.case) | 890 F.2d 1363 (7th Cir. 1989), *United States v. Ocampo* | Circuit / Unreviewed | **Conviction Recital & Sufficiency Conclusion as Fact**: Line 65 (`decider court-below`) quotes opening jury-conviction recital (`@22..367`) as `fact` with no `held`; line 39 quotes appellate inference conclusion (`@21820..22075`) as `fact`. | **FIX** |
| 13 | `21usc841` | [`21usc841/us-500-453-chapman-v-united-states.case`](file:///home/mma/repos/neochart-wt-argon2/neov2/cases/21usc841/us-500-453-chapman-v-united-states.case) | 500 U.S. 453 (1991), *Chapman v. United States* | SCOTUS / Stale PASS | **Appellate Contention as Fact (`guard[G2-recital]`)**: Line 37 quotes `"Petitioners appealed, claiming..."` (`@1325..1498`) as `fact [supports]`; line 24 quotes conviction recital (`@480..659`) as `fact`. | **FIX** |
| 14 | `21usc841` | [`21usc841/f2d-701-1349-united-states-v-vera.case`](file:///home/mma/repos/neochart-wt-argon2/neov2/cases/21usc841/f2d-701-1349-united-states-v-vera.case) | 701 F.2d 1349 (11th Cir. 1983), *United States v. Vera* | Circuit / Unreviewed | **Sound Extraction**: Per-defendant (`p1` Vera, `p2` Posada, `p3` both) sufficiency holdings on circumstantial knowledge, constructive/actual possession, and delivery; § 846 count isolated via `role background`. | **PASS** |
| 15 | `42usc1983` | [`42usc1983/us-503-115-collins-v-harker-heights.case`](file:///home/mma/repos/neochart-wt-argon2/neov2/cases/42usc1983/us-503-115-collins-v-harker-heights.case) | 503 U.S. 115 (1992), *Collins v. City of Harker Heights* | SCOTUS / Unreviewed | **Lower-Court Doctrinal Recital as Fact**: Line 44 (`element x-abuse-of-governmental-power`) quotes Fifth Circuit's procedural/doctrinal ground below (`@1815..2080`) as `fact [cuts-against]`. | **FIX** |
| 16 | `42usc1983` | [`42usc1983/f3d-813-938-henderson-v-glanz.case`](file:///home/mma/repos/neochart-wt-argon2/neov2/cases/42usc1983/f3d-813-938-henderson-v-glanz.case) | 813 F.3d 938 (10th Cir. 2015), *Henderson v. Glanz* | Circuit / Unreviewed | **Briefing Recitals as Fact & Incomplete Lower-Court Block**: Lines 58 (`@22254..22514`) and 66 (`@26149..26410`) quote briefing postures as `fact`; `decider court-below` block (`p4`) has no `held` and omits Sheriff Glanz's notice facts. | **FIX** |
| 17 | `42usc2000e-2` | [`42usc2000e-2/us-509-502-st-marys-honor-center-v-hicks.case`](file:///home/mma/repos/neochart-wt-argon2/neov2/cases/42usc2000e-2/us-509-502-st-marys-honor-center-v-hicks.case) | 509 U.S. 502 (1993), *St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks* | SCOTUS / Stale PASS | **Concession Recital & Trial-Judge Holding as Fact**: Line 53 quotes `"Respondent does not challenge the District Court's finding..."` (`@5786..6065`) as `fact`; line 80 (`decider trial-judge`) tags ultimate conclusion (`@7534..7739`) as `fact` with no `held`. | **FIX** |
| 18 | `42usc2000e-2` | [`42usc2000e-2/f3d-527-358-doe-v-cars-protection-plus.case`](file:///home/mma/repos/neochart-wt-argon2/neov2/cases/42usc2000e-2/f3d-527-358-doe-v-cars-protection-plus.case) | 527 F.3d 358 (3d Cir. 2008), *Doe v. C.A.R.S. Protection Plus* | Circuit / Unreviewed | **Contention & Pretext Inference as Fact; Basis Error**: Line 32 quotes `"Instead, she argues..."` (`@4676..4762`) as `fact`; line 89 quotes court's pretext inference (`@32278..32512`) as `fact`; line 77 codes Step 2 `employer-reason` as `[triable]` instead of `[law]`. | **FIX** |
---
## Overall Quantitative Assessment of Fable-Authored Quality
### 1. Headline Metrics
- **Total Sampled Files Audited:** 18 files (2 per statute across all 9 Fable-authored statutes; 9 SCOTUS + 9 Circuit/District).
- **Outcome (`result`) Direction Accuracy:** **18 / 18 (100.0% PASS, 0.0% Defect Rate)** — Every single file in the 18-case sample records the correct `result` direction (`claimant-won`, `claimant-lost`, `remanded`, `mixed`, `not-decided`) verified against the canonical opinion disposition.
- **SCOTUS Syllabus Avoidance on `master`:** **9 / 9 (100.0% PASS, 0.0% Defect Rate)** — Following commit `c1324a9` on `kousisis-v-us.case`, zero quotes in any of the 9 SCOTUS files come from the Reporter's Syllabus.
- **Total Passing Without Fix on `master` (`1203c16`):** **4 / 18 files (22.2% PASS Rate)**.
- **Total Requiring Substantive Fix on `master` (`1203c16`):** **14 / 18 files (77.8% Defect Rate)**.
- **Projected Pass Rate After Merging `origin/fable2-partial-review` (`3103ac1`):** **11 / 18 files (61.1% PASS Rate, 38.9% Defect Rate)** — All 7 sampled files touched by `origin/fable2-partial-review` (`leegin`, `levine`, `neder`, `chung-lo`, `kousisis` when combined with `c1324a9`, `baker`, and `dunlap`) have their defects resolved by that branch.
| Failure Mode Category | Files Affected on `master` (n = 18) | Defect Rate on `master` | Files Remaining After `origin/fable2-partial-review` (n = 18) | Post-Branch Defect Rate |
|---|:---:|:---:|:---:|:---:|
| **1. Outcome (`result`) Inversion** | 0 / 18 | **0.0%** | 0 / 18 | **0.0%** |
| **2. Syllabus Quoting in SCOTUS Opinions** | 0 / 18 (0 / 9 SCOTUS) | **0.0%** | 0 / 18 | **0.0%** |
| **3. Procedural History, Party Contention, or Prior-Verdict Recitals Quoted as `fact` (`recital-as-fact`)** | 12 / 18 | **66.7%** | 7 / 18 | **38.9%** |
| **4. Judicial Holding / Inference Quoted as `fact` or Missing Lower-Court `held` (`held-as-fact`)** | 5 / 18 | **27.8%** | 4 / 18 | **22.2%** |
| **5. Route Fit Mismatch (`route-fit`)** | 3 / 18 | **16.7%** | 0 / 18 | **0.0%** |
| **6. Epistemic Basis Mismatch (`basis-error`)** | 1 / 18 | **5.6%** | 1 / 18 | **5.6%** |
| **7. Polarity Inversion / Element Misconflation / Role-Scope Errors** | 0 / 18 | **0.0%** | 0 / 18 | **0.0%** |
| **Any Substantive Defect (File-Level `FIX`)** | **14 / 18** | **77.8%** | **7 / 18** | **38.9%** |
### 2. Breakdown of Failure Modes (by Frequency across 18 Samples)
1. **Procedural History, Party Contention, or Prior-Verdict Recitals Quoted as Case Facts (12/18 = 66.7% on `master`; 7/18 = 38.9% after `origin/fable2-partial-review`):**
- Two files on `master` fail `casedsl.py check --strict` with `guard[G2-recital]`: *Kousisis v. United States* (`@15918..16098`, `"Alpha and Kousisis moved for a judgment of acquittal, arguing..."`) and *Chapman v. United States* (`@1325..1498`, `"Petitioners appealed, claiming that the blotter paper is only a carrier medium..."`).
- Five additional files on `master` quote lower-court procedural rulings, prior jury verdicts, or party legal contentions as `fact` and are already fixed on `origin/fable2-partial-review`: *Leegin* (`@5344..5439`, District Court exclusion of expert testimony), *Levine* (`@18005..18133`, `"Plaintiff has suggested that this ease involves a group boycott..."`), *Neder* (`@4518..4651`, District Court omission of materiality from jury instructions), *Kousisis* (`@15918..16098`), and *Dunlap* (`@2913..3064` prior jury conviction recital and `@31029..31255` `"Defendant contends that the court cannot rely..."`).
- Six files not on `origin/fable2-partial-review` exhibit the same pattern: *Crest Construction* (`@18651..18848`, `"Plaintiffs argue the district court failed to 'recognize...'"`, and `@22861..23023`, `"Rather, Plaintiffs circularly argue..."`), *Ocampo* (`@22..367`, opening sentence reciting that defendants were convicted by a federal jury), *Collins* (`@1815..2080`, reciting the Fifth Circuit's `"no 'abuse of governmental power'"` ground for affirmance), *Henderson* (`@22254..22514` and `@26149..26410`, summary-judgment/appellate briefing postures), *Hicks* (`@5786..6065`, `"Respondent does not challenge the District Court's finding that petitioners sustained their burden of production..."`), and *Doe v. C.A.R.S.* (`@4676..4762`, `"Instead, she argues that she was discharged because she underwent a surgical abortion."`).
2. **Judicial Holding / Sufficiency Inference Quoted as `fact` or Missing Lower-Court `held` (5/18 = 27.8% on `master`; 4/18 = 22.2% after `origin/fable2-partial-review`):**
- In *Baker* (`18usc1343`), the `decider court-below` block on `element property` tagged the district court's sufficiency ruling (`@29159..29468`) as `fact [supports]`, leaving the block with no `held` and no case fact (fixed on `origin/fable2-partial-review`).
- In *Hicks* (`42usc2000e-2`), the `decider trial-judge` block on `element pretext` tags the District Court's ultimate bench-trial holding (`@7534..7739`, `"In short, the District Court concluded that 'although [respondent] has proven the existence of a crusade to terminate him, he has not proven that the crusade was racially rather than personally motivated.'"`) as `fact [cuts-against absent]`, leaving the block with no `held` line.
- In *Ocampo* (`18usc924`), line 39 quotes the Seventh Circuit's sufficiency conclusion (`@21820..22075`, `"the jury could reasonably infer from all of the evidence that Ocampo possessed a loaded revolver in order to protect himself, his partner, and his cocaine shipment"`) as `fact [supports]`, and the `decider court-below` block on `element predicate.drug` has no `held`.
- In *Henderson* (`42usc1983`), the `decider court-below` block (`element deprivation.eighth-amendment : satisfied [triable]`) has no `held` quote (even though the opinion explicitly states the district court's holdings at `@22405..22462` and `@25943..26148`) and only a single borrowed briefing-posture `fact` line.
- In *Doe v. C.A.R.S.* (`42usc2000e-2`), line 89 quotes the Third Circuit's pretext inference (`@32278..32512`, `"The conversation between Kohl and Babich... indicates that Kohl may have had other reasons for terminating Doe's employment than her 'abandonment' of her job."`) as `fact [supports]`.
3. **Route Fit Mismatch (3/18 = 16.7% on `master`; 0/18 = 0.0% after `origin/fable2-partial-review`):**
- In *Levine* (`15usc1`), `element agreement : satisfied [assumed]` used `route capacity-to-conspire` when the block merely assumed the first two § 1 elements arguendo (`route _whole`).
- In *Neder* (`18usc1341`), `element materiality : not-reached` used `route _procedural` when the block announced the substantive statutory element rule (`route _whole`).
- In *Chung Lo* (`18usc1341`), `element mails : satisfied [conceded]` used `route proof-of-mailing` for third-party County Recorder mailings where mailing was conceded and foreseeable third-party causation was at issue (`route caused-by-third-party`).
4. **Epistemic Basis Mismatch (1/18 = 5.6%):**
- In *Doe v. C.A.R.S.* (`42usc2000e-2`), line 77 codes `element employer-reason : satisfied [triable]` on the employer's summary judgment motion, whereas the court holds as a matter of law/production (`[law]`) that unexcused absence is a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason (`held @29871..29968`).
### 3. Synthesis: The "Fable Quality Profile"
Fable's annotations are doctrinally deep and structurally sound: outcome (`result`) direction is 100% accurate across all 18 cases, role/scope/decider decompositions are well-reasoned, and polarities on genuine evidentiary facts are consistently right. Fable's primary recurring vulnerability—born of freezing the v0 quote sets during the mechanical v0→v1→v1.2 migrations—is **retaining procedural history, party contentions, or lower-court conclusions inside `fact` lines** (often noted candidly by Fable in `?` or `misfit` lines rather than excised from the quote set).
---
## Comparison: `master` (`1203c16`) vs `origin/fable2-partial-review` (`3103ac1`)
Branch `origin/fable2-partial-review` (`3103ac15725f82ff1728f652001fad9a2741fc5d`) modifies 18 Fable-authored `.case` files across 4 statutes (`15usc1`, `18usc1341`, `18usc1343`, `18usc922`), 7 of which are in our 18-case sample.
```text
$ git diff --stat de4fd04..origin/fable2-partial-review
neov2/cases/15usc1/f-supp-3d-351-698-in-re-interest-rate-swaps.case | 5 ++---
neov2/cases/15usc1/f-supp-864-1175-levine-v-central-florida-medical.case | 3 +--
neov2/cases/15usc1/f2d-361-874-ford-v-websters-auto-sales.case | 1 -
neov2/cases/15usc1/f2d-743-1114-us-v-american-airlines.case | 2 +-
neov2/cases/15usc1/f2d-845-1367-us-v-cooperative-theatres.case | 11 ++++++-----
neov2/cases/15usc1/f3d-117-1137-systemcare-v-wang-laboratories.case | 3 +--
neov2/cases/15usc1/f3d-496-403-tunica-web-advertising-v-tunica-casino-operators.case | 1 -
neov2/cases/15usc1/us-547-1-texaco-v-dagher.case | 3 +--
neov2/cases/15usc1/us-551-877-leegin-v-psks.case | 5 ++---
neov2/cases/18usc1341/f3d-231-471-us-v-chung-lo.case | 2 +-
neov2/cases/18usc1341/f3d-29-112-us-v-henry.case | 1 -
neov2/cases/18usc1341/us-527-1-neder-v-us.case | 3 +--
neov2/cases/18usc1343/f-supp-2d-562-719-us-v-jefferson.case | 2 +-
neov2/cases/18usc1343/f-supp-957-39-us-v-sancho.case | 1 -
neov2/cases/18usc1343/f2d-858-1427-us-v-bonallo.case | 5 ++---
neov2/cases/18usc1343/f3d-923-390-us-v-baker.case | 5 +++--
neov2/cases/18usc1343/us-605-114-kousisis-v-us.case | 4 ++--
neov2/cases/18usc922/f-supp-3d-162-1106-us-v-dunlap.case | 6 ++----
neov2/cases/18usc922/f2d-726-869-us-v-rodgers.case | 4 ++--
neov2/cases/18usc922/f3d-57-516-us-v-kitchen.case | 1 -
neov2/cases/18usc922/f3d-683-1314-us-v-cochran.case | 1 -
neov2/cases/18usc922/f3d-99-836-us-v-corley.case | 2 +-
```
| Sample # | File in Sample | `master` (`1203c16`) State | `origin/fable2-partial-review` (`3103ac1`) Change | Which Version Is Right? |
|:---:|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | `15usc1/us-551-877-leegin-v-psks.case` | `FIX` — Line 48 has `fact @5344..5439 [neutral]` (District Court exclusion of expert testimony). | Deletes `fact @5344..5439 [neutral]` and updates gloss/comment (`PASS`). | **`origin/fable2-partial-review` is right.** |
| 2 | `15usc1/f-supp-864-1175-levine-v-central-florida-medical.case` | `FIX` — Line 43 has `route capacity-to-conspire`; line 54 has `fact @18005..18133 [supports]` (plaintiff's group-boycott contention). | Changes line 43 to `route _whole` and deletes `fact @18005..18133 [supports]` (`PASS`). | **`origin/fable2-partial-review` is right.** |
| 3 | `18usc1341/us-527-1-neder-v-us.case` | `FIX` — Line 21 has `route _procedural`; line 26 has `fact @4518..4651 [cuts-against absent]` (jury instruction omission). | Changes line 21 to `route _whole` and deletes `fact @4518..4651` (`PASS`). | **`origin/fable2-partial-review` is right.** |
| 4 | `18usc1341/f3d-231-471-us-v-chung-lo.case` | `FIX` — Line 53 has `route proof-of-mailing` for third-party County Recorder deed mailings. | Changes line 53 to `route caused-by-third-party` (`PASS`). | **`origin/fable2-partial-review` is right.** |
| 5 | `18usc1343/us-605-114-kousisis-v-us.case` | `FIX` — Has post-syllabus `opinion op : majority @9929..60000 controlling` (`c1324a9`), but retains `guard[G2-recital]` `fact @15918..16098` on line 28. | Deletes `fact @15918..16098` (`guard[G2-recital]`), but predates `c1324a9` so line 11 still has `@0..60000`. | **Merge both:** `origin/fable2-partial-review` is right on deleting `fact @15918..16098`; `master` (`c1324a9`) is right on starting the opinion at `@9929` past the Syllabus. |
| 6 | `18usc1343/f3d-923-390-us-v-baker.case` | `FIX` — Line 44 (`decider court-below`) tags district court sufficiency conclusion `@29159..29468` as `fact [supports]`, with no `held`. | Re-tags `@29159..29468` as `held` and adds genuine case fact `fact @638..830 [supports]` (`PASS`). | **`origin/fable2-partial-review` is right.** |
| 10 | `18usc922/f-supp-3d-162-1106-us-v-dunlap.case` | `FIX` — Line 23 quotes prior jury conviction recital `@2913..3064`; line 32 quotes defendant's legal contention `@31029..31255` as `fact`. | Deletes both `@2913..3064` and `@31029..31255` and updates glosses (`PASS`). | **`origin/fable2-partial-review` is right.** |
---
## Detailed Per-File Audit
### 1. 15 U.S.C. § 1 (Sherman Act Restraint of Trade)
#### FIX — [`15usc1/us-551-877-leegin-v-psks.case`](file:///home/mma/repos/neochart-wt-argon2/neov2/cases/15usc1/us-551-877-leegin-v-psks.case)
- **Case:** *Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. v. PSKS, Inc.*, 551 U.S. 877 (2007) (`/us/551/0877-01`)
- **1. Outcome (`result`) Direction Check (Checked First):**
- Civil treble-damages suit by retailer PSKS against manufacturer Leegin; Fifth Circuit affirmed plaintiff's jury verdict under the *Dr. Miles* per se rule; Supreme Court overrules *Dr. Miles*, reverses, and remands for rule-of-reason proceedings. `result remanded` is **correct**.
```text
$ python3 neov2/tools/casedsl.py text /us/551/0877-01 52650 53181
[52548] For these reasons the Court’s decision in Dr. Miles Medical Co. v. John D. Park & Sons Co., 220 U. S. 373 (1911), is now overruled. Vertical price restraints are to be judged according to the rule of reason.
...
[53042] The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
[53163] It is so ordered.
```
- **2. Role, Scope, Holding, Polarity, Basis, Route Fit & Quote Audit:**
- `role rule-announced`, `opinion maj : majority by Kennedy @0..53180 controlling`, and `opinion dis : dissent by Breyer @53182..60000` are properly segmented; `element agreement : satisfied [conceded]` (`route vertical-agreement`) and `element restraint.per-se : not-reached` (`cites mode restraint = rule-of-reason`, `route vertical-price-restraint`) fit the taxonomy.
- **Defect (`recital-as-fact`):** Line 48 in `element restraint.per-se : not-reached` quotes the District Court's procedural evidentiary exclusion (`fact @5344..5439 [neutral] | The District Court excluded the testimony, relying on the per se rule established by Dr. Miles.`). A trial court's evidentiary ruling is procedural history, not a case fact.
```text
$ python3 neov2/tools/casedsl.py text /us/551/0877-01 5200 5500
[4967] PSKS sued Leegin in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. ... Leegin planned to introduce expert testimony describing the procompetitive effects of its pricing policy. The District Court excluded the testimony, relying on the per se rule established by Dr. Miles.
```
- **3. Comparison: `master` vs `origin/fable2-partial-review` (`3103ac1`):**
- `origin/fable2-partial-review` deletes `fact @5344..5439 [neutral]` and updates the gloss. **`origin/fable2-partial-review` is right.**
```text
$ git diff de4fd04..origin/fable2-partial-review -- neov2/cases/15usc1/us-551-877-leegin-v-psks.case
@@ -45,12 +45,11 @@ element restraint.per-se : not-reached
fact @2638..2750 [supports] | Following the policy, Leegin refused to sell to retailers that discounted Brighton goods below suggested prices.
fact @4485..4593 [supports] | In December 2002, Leegin discovered Kay’s Kloset had been marking down Brighton’s entire line by 20 percent.
fact @4808..4865 [supports] | Its request refused, Leegin stopped selling to the store.
- fact @5344..5439 [neutral] | The District Court excluded the testimony, relying on the per se rule established by Dr. Miles.
rule @10049..10185 | As a consequence, the per se rule is appropriate only after courts have had considerable experience with the type of restraint at issue,
```
---
#### FIX — [`15usc1/f-supp-864-1175-levine-v-central-florida-medical.case`](file:///home/mma/repos/neochart-wt-argon2/neov2/cases/15usc1/f-supp-864-1175-levine-v-central-florida-medical.case)
- **Case:** *Levine v. Central Florida Medical Affiliates, Inc.*, 864 F. Supp. 1175 (M.D. Fla. 1994) (`/f-supp/864/1175-01`)
- **1. Outcome (`result`) Direction Check (Checked First):**
- Physician sued PPO, hospitals, and medical staff under Sherman Act §§ 1–2; District Court grants summary judgment to all defendants on all federal antitrust counts (Counts I–III) and dismisses pendent state claims without prejudice. `result claimant-lost` is **correct**.
```text
$ python3 neov2/tools/casedsl.py text /f-supp/864/1175-01 36850 37550
[36830] Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED:
[36865] 1. The Motion for Partial Summary Judgment by Defendant Central Florida Medical Affiliates, Inc. (Dkt. 46) is GRANTED.
[36984] 2. The Motion for Summary Judgment by Defendants Orlando Regional Healthcare Systems, Inc. f/k/a Orlando Regional Medical Center and Sand Lake Hospital (Dkt. 58) is GRANTED.
[37158] 3. The Motion for Partial Summary Judgment by Defendant Healthc/ioice, Inc. (Dkt. 60) is GRANTED.
...
[37434] 6. The Clerk of the Court shah enter judgment against Plaintiff and in favor of Defendants on Counts I, II and III of Plaintiffs Complaint.
```
- **2. Role, Scope, Holding, Polarity, Basis, Route Fit & Quote Audit:**
- **Defect 1 (`route-fit`):** Line 43 (`element agreement : satisfied [assumed]` for `party ormc`, the sham peer-review theory) assigns `route capacity-to-conspire`. Although the court notes in passing that Eleventh Circuit law permits a hospital and its staff to conspire, the block's holding (`@15202..15345`) simply assumes the first two elements of a § 1 claim arguendo without adjudicating intra-enterprise capacity to conspire; `route _whole` is the proper route.
- **Defect 2 (`recital-as-fact`):** Line 54 (`element restraint.rule-of-reason : not-satisfied [no-evidence]`) quotes `fact @18005..18133 [supports] | Plaintiff has suggested that this ease involves a group boycott, which traditionally has been categorized as a per se violation.` That is plaintiff's legal characterization/argument, not a case fact.
```text
$ python3 neov2/tools/casedsl.py text /f-supp/864/1175-01 15150 15400
[14402] ... Therefore, a doctor may establish the first two elements of a Section 1 claim by attacking the peer review process and by presenting evidence that suggests the review was a sham and pretextual. For the purpose of deciding Defendants’ motion, the Court will assume that Plaintiff can establish the first two elements of a Section 1 claim.
$ python3 neov2/tools/casedsl.py text /f-supp/864/1175-01 17950 18250
[18005] Plaintiff has suggested that this ease involves a group boycott, which traditionally has been categorized as a per se violation. The Court is not persuaded that the facts presented are consistent with the traditional group boycott situation.
```
- **3. Comparison: `master` vs `origin/fable2-partial-review` (`3103ac1`):**
- `origin/fable2-partial-review` changes line 43 from `route capacity-to-conspire` to `route _whole` and deletes `fact @18005..18133 [supports]` on line 54. **`origin/fable2-partial-review` is right.**
```text
$ git diff de4fd04..origin/fable2-partial-review -- neov2/cases/15usc1/f-supp-864-1175-levine-v-central-florida-medical.case
@@ -40,7 +40,7 @@ element agreement : not-satisfied [no-evidence]
element agreement : satisfied [assumed]
party ormc
theory peer
- route capacity-to-conspire
+ route _whole
pattern sham-peer-review-assumed-arguendo
fact @2785..2963 [supports] | On December 18, 1991, after conducting some investigation into patient charts, the peer review panel at Sand Lake suspended Dr. Levine’s staff privileges at ORMC and Sand Lake.
@@ -51,7 +51,6 @@ element restraint.rule-of-reason : not-satisfied [no-evidence]
cites mode restraint = rule-of-reason
route anticompetitive-effect
pattern no-market-definition-and-no-actual-detrimental-effect
- fact @18005..18133 [supports] | Plaintiff has suggested that this ease involves a group boycott, which traditionally has been categorized as a per se violation.
fact @17408..17551 [cuts-against] | He is still able to admit patients to competitor hospitals, and the patient makes the threshold choice of selecting which hospital to use.
```
---
### 2. 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (Mail Fraud)
#### FIX — [`18usc1341/us-527-1-neder-v-us.case`](file:///home/mma/repos/neochart-wt-argon2/neov2/cases/18usc1341/us-527-1-neder-v-us.case)
- **Case:** *Neder v. United States*, 527 U.S. 1 (1999) (`/us/527/0001-01`)
- **1. Outcome (`result`) Direction Check (Checked First):**
- Criminal mail, wire, bank, and tax fraud prosecution (United States is claimant); Eleventh Circuit affirmed all convictions; Supreme Court affirms on the tax counts, holds that materiality is an element of the mail, wire, and bank fraud statutes, and reverses and remands the fraud counts for harmless-error review. For `law 18usc1341`, `result remanded` is **correct**.
```text
$ python3 neov2/tools/casedsl.py text /us/527/0001-01 38450 38807
[38141] Accordingly, we hold that materiality of falsehood is an element of the federal mail fraud, wire fraud, and bank fraud statutes. Consistent with our normal practice where the court below has not yet passed on the harmlessness of any error, see Carella, 491 U. S., at 266-267, we remand this case to the Court of Appeals for it to consider in the first instance whether the jury-instruction error was harmless.
[38551] IV
[38554] The judgment of the Court of Appeals respecting the tax fraud counts is affirmed. The judgment of the Court of Appeals on the remaining counts is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
[38789] It is so ordered.
```
- **2. Role, Scope, Holding, Polarity, Basis, Route Fit & Quote Audit:**
- Opinion spans (`maj` `@0..44328`, `stevens` `@44328..52954`, `scalia` `@52954..60000`) are accurately segmented, and `role rule-announced` is right.
- **Defect 1 (`route-fit`):** Line 21 (`element materiality : not-reached`) uses `route _procedural`, whereas the block's holding (`@38141..38252`, `"materiality of falsehood is an element of the federal mail fraud, wire fraud, and bank fraud statutes"`) establishes the substantive element requirement as a whole (`route _whole`).
- **Defect 2 (`recital-as-fact`):** Line 26 quotes `fact @4518..4651 [cuts-against absent] | In instructing the jury on mail fraud and wire fraud, the District Court did not include materiality as an element of either offense.` That is trial-court jury-instruction procedural history, not a case fact of the fraud scheme.
```text
$ python3 neov2/tools/casedsl.py text /us/527/0001-01 4450 4700
[3915] ... In instructing the jury on mail fraud and wire fraud, the District Court did not include materiality as an element of either offense. Id., at 253-255. Neder again objected to the instruction.
```
- **3. Comparison: `master` vs `origin/fable2-partial-review` (`3103ac1`):**
- `origin/fable2-partial-review` changes `route _procedural` to `route _whole` on line 21 and deletes `fact @4518..4651 [cuts-against absent]` on line 26. **`origin/fable2-partial-review` is right.**
```text
$ git diff de4fd04..origin/fable2-partial-review -- neov2/cases/18usc1341/us-527-1-neder-v-us.case
@@ -18,12 +18,11 @@ law 18usc1341
result remanded
element materiality : not-reached
- route _procedural
+ route _whole
pattern common-law-incorporation/element-omitted-from-jury-instruction-harmless-error-remand
fact @1782..1971 [supports] | In accordance with this scheme, Neder executed a number of transactions between 1984 and 1986 in which he took out loans totaling $17 million to purchase and develop land initially worth $4 million.
fact @2345..2485 [supports] | Reden also submitted a host of false invoices, falsely stated that equity was in place, and obtained silent second mortgages from the sellers.
fact @2770..2938 [supports] | After depositing matching checks in several accounts at different banks, he obtained a $4.7 million construction loan from lenders who relied on the inflated balances.
- fact @4518..4651 [cuts-against absent] | In instructing the jury on mail fraud and wire fraud, the District Court did not include materiality as an element of either offense.
rule @28258..28412 | It is a well-established rule of construction that “‘[w]here Congress uses terms that have accumulated settled meaning under . . . the common law, a court must infer, unless the statute otherwise dictates, that Congress means to incorporate the established meaning of these terms.’”
```
---
#### FIX — [`18usc1341/f3d-231-471-us-v-chung-lo.case`](file:///home/mma/repos/neochart-wt-argon2/neov2/cases/18usc1341/f3d-231-471-us-v-chung-lo.case)
- **Case:** *United States v. Chung Lo*, 231 F.3d 471 (9th Cir. 2000) (`/f3d/231/0471-01`)
- **1. Outcome (`result`) Direction Check (Checked First):**
- Criminal appeal from 8 mail-fraud convictions (Counts 4–7, 9–11, 13); Ninth Circuit affirms Counts 4, 5, 7, and 9, reverses Counts 6, 10, 11, and 13, and remands. `result mixed` is **correct**.
```text
$ python3 neov2/tools/casedsl.py text /f3d/231/0471-01 36050 36360
[35549] For the foregoing reasons, we affirm Lo’s conviction on Counts One and Two, Four and Five, Seven through Nine, and Twelve. Because we find that the government failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish the required mailing element with regard to the Hugo property, we reverse her conviction for mail fraud under Count Thirteen. Also, because we find insufficient evidence linking Lo to the Bru-baker charges or to Aglibot-Bryant’s transfer of the 79th Avenue property back to her husband and Bosnich’s transfer of the same .property to Aglibot-Bryant, we reverse her convictions for mail fraud under Counts Six, Ten and Eleven as well. This matter is hereby remanded to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.
```
- **2. Role, Scope, Holding, Polarity, Basis, Route Fit & Quote Audit:**
- Per-count decompositions (`c_hugo` Count 13 `mails : not-satisfied [no-evidence]` under `route proof-of-mailing`; `c_live` Counts 4, 5, 7, 9 `furtherance : satisfied [proved]` under `route after-fruition`; `c_drop` Counts 6, 10, 11 `scheme : not-satisfied [no-evidence]`) are well-structured and accurate.
- **Defect (`route-fit`):** Line 53 (`element mails : satisfied [conceded]` for `count c_seven`, Counts 4–7 and 9–11, deeds mailed by the County Recorder to the straw buyers/owners after recording) uses `route proof-of-mailing`. However, whether the deeds were mailed was undisputed (`[conceded]`); the issue captured by `held @36903..36973` (`"That Lo did not herself specifically plan the mailing is immaterial."`) is foreseeable causation of a third-party mailing by the County Recorder, which maps to `route caused-by-third-party` in `18usc1341`.
```text
$ python3 neov2/tools/casedsl.py text /f3d/231/0471-01 36750 37050
[36903] . That Lo did not herself specifically plan the mailing is immaterial. In her Reply Brief, appellant notes that she has “never suggested that she could not have predicted the mails ultimately might be used in connection with the loans she helped obtain for her clients." And indeed, Lo must have known that the mailing of the deeds would occur. Printed at the top of the recording documents were specific instructions to the Recorder to mail the deed to the appropriate party when recorded.
```
- **3. Comparison: `master` vs `origin/fable2-partial-review` (`3103ac1`):**
- `origin/fable2-partial-review` changes line 53 from `route proof-of-mailing` to `route caused-by-third-party`. **`origin/fable2-partial-review` is right.**
```text
$ git diff de4fd04..origin/fable2-partial-review -- neov2/cases/18usc1341/f3d-231-471-us-v-chung-lo.case
@@ -50,7 +50,7 @@ element mails : not-satisfied [no-evidence]
element mails : satisfied [conceded]
count c_seven
- route proof-of-mailing
+ route caused-by-third-party
pattern county-recorder-mailed-recorded-deeds-not-disputed
fact @14321..14518 [supports] | This group of mail fraud convictions was based on mailings by the Alameda County Recorder of a particular property’s grant deed to the purchaser of the property after that deed was recorded.
```
---
### 3. 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (Wire Fraud)
#### FIX — [`18usc1343/us-605-114-kousisis-v-us.case`](file:///home/mma/repos/neochart-wt-argon2/neov2/cases/18usc1343/us-605-114-kousisis-v-us.case)
- **Case:** *Kousisis v. United States*, 605 U.S. 114 (2025) (`/us/605/114`)
- **1. Outcome (`result`) Direction Check (Checked First):**
- Criminal wire-fraud and conspiracy prosecution (United States is claimant); Third Circuit affirmed convictions; Supreme Court affirms (`@49576..49639`, `"Because the Third Circuit's judgment comports with § 1343, we affrm it. It is so ordered."`). `result claimant-won` is **correct**.
```text
$ python3 -c 'import sys; sys.path.insert(0,"neov2/tools"); import casedsl; print(casedsl.load_case("/us/605/114")["text"][49500:49660])'
United States v. Feldman, 931 F. 3d 1245, 1270 (CA11 2019) (Pryor, J., concurring). Be- cause the Third Circuit's judgment comports with § 1343, we affrm it. It is so ordered. Justice Thomas, concurring.
```
- **2. Role, Scope, Holding, Polarity, Basis, Route Fit & Quote Audit:**
- `element property : satisfied [law]` (`route money-or-entitlement`, `pattern contract-payments-obtained-despite-full-performance-of-work`) and `element materiality : satisfied [conceded]` (`route _whole`) fit the opinion and taxonomy.
- **Defect (`recital-as-fact`, flagged by `guard[G2-recital]`):** Line 28 quotes `fact @15918..16098 [cuts-against] | 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.` This is a procedural motion and legal contention recital, while the underlying performance fact is already captured on line 27 (`fact @15400..15574 [cuts-against] | PennDOT, satisfed with Alpha's paint and repair work, paid it accordingly. By the time the last coat of paint had dried, Alpha had turned a gross proft of over $20 million.`).
- Note also that Justice Barrett's majority opinion ends at `@49639` (`"It is so ordered."`) and `@49640..60000` is Justice Thomas's concurrence (`Justice Thomas, concurring.`), though no quotes are drawn from `@49640..60000`.
```text
$ python3 -c 'import sys; sys.path.insert(0,"neov2/tools"); import casedsl; print(casedsl.load_case("/us/605/114")["text"][15800:16150])'
After a trial, the jury found them guilty of three counts of wire fraud and one count of conspiracy. 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.
```
- **3. Comparison: `master` vs `origin/fable2-partial-review` (`3103ac1`):**
- `origin/fable2-partial-review` deletes `fact @15918..16098 [cuts-against]` (resolving the `guard[G2-recital]` error), whereas `master` (`c1324a9`) updated line 12 to `opinion op : majority @9929..60000 controlling` so the Reporter's Syllabus (`@0..9928`) is excluded from the opinion span. **Both changes are right and should be combined** (`@9929..49639` majority span from `master` + removal of `fact @15918..16098` from `origin/fable2-partial-review`).
```text
$ git diff de4fd04..origin/fable2-partial-review -- neov2/cases/18usc1343/us-605-114-kousisis-v-us.case
@@ -8,8 +8,8 @@ case /us/605/114
url https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10596682/kousisis-v-united-states/
source ir/caselaw/cases_18usc1343.jsonl sha1=681db4bd278748b2ef9dc3115ce46850e5f23364 chars=60000
-opinion op : majority @9929..60000 controlling
-? opinion: starts after Reporter's Syllabus (@0..9928); separate opinions and footnotes are not segmented
+opinion op : majority @0..60000 controlling
+? opinion: mechanical upgrade -- one whole-text span; separate opinions and footnotes are not segmented
law 18usc1343
role applied
@@ -25,7 +25,6 @@ element property : satisfied [law]
fact @14084..14251 [supports] | Accordingly, as part of the bidding process, Kousisis represented that Alpha would acquire approximately $6.4 million in painting supplies from Markias, Inc., a prequalifed disadvantaged business.
fact @14252..14412 [supports] | This was a lie. As later memorialized in a commitment letter, Alpha and Kousisis concocted a scheme in which Markias would function as a mere “pass-through” entity.
fact @15400..15574 [cuts-against] | PennDOT, satisfed with Alpha's paint and repair work, paid it accordingly. By the time the last coat of paint had dried, Alpha had turned a gross proft of over $20 million.
- fact @15918..16098 [cuts-against] | 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.
rule @17726..17910 | A defendant commits federal wire fraud, in other words, only if he both “ `engaged in decep- tion' ” and had “ `money or property' ” as “ `an object' ” of his fraud.
```
---
#### FIX — [`18usc1343/f3d-923-390-us-v-baker.case`](file:///home/mma/repos/neochart-wt-argon2/neov2/cases/18usc1343/f3d-923-390-us-v-baker.case)
- **Case:** *United States v. Baker*, 923 F.3d 390 (5th Cir. 2019) (`/f3d/923/0390-01`)
- **1. Outcome (`result`) Direction Check (Checked First):**
- Criminal wire-fraud, securities-fraud, and conspiracy appeal by former CEO Baker (United States is claimant); Fifth Circuit affirms Baker's convictions in all respects. `result claimant-won` is **correct**.
```text
$ python3 neov2/tools/casedsl.py text /f3d/923/0390-01 41300 41360
[41295] Baker's conviction is, in all respects, AFFIRMED.
```
- **2. Role, Scope, Holding, Polarity, Basis, Route Fit & Quote Audit:**
- `element property : not-reached` (`role rule-announced`, `route victim-deprivation`, holding that § 1343 does not require a mirror-image personal gain by the defendant) is accurately mapped.
- **Defect (`held-as-fact`):** In the second block (`element property : satisfied [proved]`, `decider court-below`, `review none`, lines 36–45), `master` has no `held` line at all and tags the district court's Rule 29 sufficiency holding (`@29159..29468`) as `fact [supports]`:
`fact @29159..29468 [supports] | The court explained that "substantial evidence was presented to show the misleading and fraudulent statements made by Baker induced investment in ArthroCare," and that "a rational trier of fact could have found the goal of the scheme ... was to deprive investors of money they otherwise would have possessed."`
```text
$ python3 neov2/tools/casedsl.py text /f3d/923/0390-01 29100 29500
[28664] After the jury convicted Baker, he moved for a judgment of acquittal. ... The district court denied the motion, concluding that "the focus" of a scheme to defraud is on "depriving the victim of property for some benefit" and that there is "no requirement that a defendant must directly gain or possess [the victim's] property." The court explained that "substantial evidence was presented to show the misleading and fraudulent statements made by Baker induced investment in ArthroCare," and that "a rational trier of fact could have found the goal of the scheme ... was to deprive investors of money they otherwise would have possessed."
```
- **3. Comparison: `master` vs `origin/fable2-partial-review` (`3103ac1`):**
- `origin/fable2-partial-review` re-tags `@29159..29468` from `fact [supports]` to `held` and adds a genuine case fact (`fact @638..830 [supports] | Baker hid this scheme from ArthroCare's board and auditors, and he made false statements to the SEC and to investors about the company's business model and relationships with its distributors.`). **`origin/fable2-partial-review` is right.**
```text
$ git diff de4fd04..origin/fable2-partial-review -- neov2/cases/18usc1343/f3d-923-390-us-v-baker.case
@@ -41,8 +41,9 @@ element property : satisfied [proved]
route victim-deprivation
pattern induced-stock-investment-deprived-investors-of-money
party p1
- fact @29159..29468 [supports] | The court explained that "substantial evidence was presented to show the misleading and fraudulent statements made by Baker induced investment in ArthroCare," and that "a rational trier of fact could have found the goal of the scheme ... was to deprive investors of money they otherwise would have possessed."
- gloss District court's sufficiency finding on the Rule 29 motion, narrated in the procedural history; Baker did not renew a sufficiency challenge to investor deprivation on appeal, pressing only the legal "mirror image" instruction objection.
+ fact @638..830 [supports] | Baker hid this scheme from ArthroCare's board and auditors, and he made false statements to the SEC and to investors about the company's business model and relationships with its distributors.
+ held @29159..29468 | The court explained that "substantial evidence was presented to show the misleading and fraudulent statements made by Baker induced investment in ArthroCare," and that "a rational trier of fact could have found the goal of the scheme ... was to deprive investors of money they otherwise would have possessed."
+ gloss District court's sufficiency ruling on the Rule 29 motion, narrated in the procedural history; Baker did not renew a sufficiency challenge to investor deprivation on appeal, pressing only the legal "mirror image" instruction objection.
```
---
### 4. 18 U.S.C. § 1962 (RICO)
#### PASS — [`18usc1962/us-507-170-reves-v-ernst-young.case`](file:///home/mma/repos/neochart-wt-argon2/neov2/cases/18usc1962/us-507-170-reves-v-ernst-young.case)
- **Case:** *Reves v. Ernst & Young*, 507 U.S. 170 (1993) (`/us/507/0170-01`)
- **1. Outcome (`result`) Direction Check (Checked First):**
- Civil RICO § 1962(c) suit by bankruptcy trustee against outside accounting firm Arthur Young (Ernst & Young's predecessor); summary judgment for defendant affirmed by Eighth Circuit and affirmed by Supreme Court. `result claimant-lost` is **correct**.
```text
$ python3 neov2/tools/casedsl.py text /us/507/0170-01 24850 25085
[24097] ... Thus, we only could conclude that Arthur Young participated in the operation or management of the Co-Op itself if Arthur Young’s failure to tell the Co-Op’s board that the plant should have been given its fair market value constituted such participation. We think that Arthur Young’s failure in this respect is not sufficient to give rise to liability under § 1962(c).
[25013] The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
[25063] It is so ordered.
```
- **2. Role, Scope, Holding, Polarity, Basis, Route Fit & Quote Audit:**
- **Clean Extraction:** `element conduct : not-satisfied [no-evidence]` (`route operation-or-management`, `pattern outside-auditor`) accurately pairs the valuation and non-disclosure facts (`@3759..3893`, `@4262..4416`, `@4606..4743`, all `[supports]`) against the undisputed reliance on existing Co-Op records (`@24097..24226`, `[cuts-against]`) and absence of Co-Op direction (`@29599..29695`, `[cuts-against absent]`), along with the operation-or-management `rule` quotes (`@13559..13706`, `@21209..21518`, `@23127..23334`) and dispositive `held @24899..25012`.
- `element enterprise : satisfied [assumed]` (`route legal-entity`, `pattern cooperative`) and the `not-reached` elements (`association`, `pattern`, `racketeering`, `injury`, `causation`) are all accurate. (Non-blocking note: `opinion op : majority @0..48933 controlling` is the mechanical whole-text span noted on line 12 and includes Justice Souter's dissent at `@29839..48933`, though zero quotes in the file come from the dissent.)
---
#### FIX — [`18usc1962/f3d-660-346-crest-construction-ii-v-doe.case`](file:///home/mma/repos/neochart-wt-argon2/neov2/cases/18usc1962/f3d-660-346-crest-construction-ii-v-doe.case)
- **Case:** *Crest Construction II, Inc. v. Doe*, 660 F.3d 346 (8th Cir. 2011) (`/f3d/660/0346-01`)
- **1. Outcome (`result`) Direction Check (Checked First):**
- Civil RICO § 1962(c) appeal by plaintiffs from Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal; Eighth Circuit affirms dismissal of the RICO claim. `result claimant-lost` is **correct**.
```text
$ python3 neov2/tools/casedsl.py text /f3d/660/0346-01 27250 27370
[27203] Because the complaint failed to allege facts sufficient to “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face,” Walker, 650 F.3d at 1203, we affirm the dismissal of Plaintiffs’ RICO claim.
```
- **2. Role, Scope, Holding, Polarity, Basis, Route Fit & Quote Audit:**
- The 5-block alternative-holdings structure (`enterprise : not-satisfied [pleaded]`, `pattern.continuity` closed-ended and open-ended `not-satisfied [pleaded]` with `scope alternative`, `pattern : not-satisfied [pleaded]` with `scope alternative`, and `racketeering.mail-fraud : not-satisfied [pleaded]` with `scope alternative`) and routes (`association-in-fact`, `closed-ended`, `open-ended`, `_pleading`) are well-chosen.
- **Defect (`recital-as-fact`):**
1. In the open-ended continuity block (`element pattern.continuity : not-satisfied [pleaded]`, `route open-ended`, lines 46–53), the **sole `fact` quote** on line 51 (`fact @18651..18848 [supports] | Plaintiffs argue the district court failed to “recognize the true nature of the Defendants’ long term threat not only to Plaintiffs but as to the multiple victims over a significant period of time”`) quotes Plaintiffs' appellate brief (`Pls.' Br. 30`) criticizing the district court, rather than a factual allegation of the complaint.
2. In `element racketeering.mail-fraud : not-satisfied [pleaded]` (line 72), `fact @22861..23023 [supports] | Rather, Plaintiffs circularly argue Defendants committed mail fraud by sending documents and funds through the U.S. mails in managing On Time Auto’s loan accounts` similarly quotes the court's characterization of Plaintiffs' circular appellate argument (while line 71 `@10962..11235` already quotes the complaint's mail/wire allegation).
```text
$ python3 neov2/tools/casedsl.py text /f3d/660/0346-01 18600 19055
[18171] ... Plaintiffs argue the district court failed to “recognize the true nature of the Defendants’ long term threat not only to Plaintiffs but as to the multiple victims over a significant period of time” and that “Plaintiffs and other financial institutions were victims of Defendants’ ongoing ‘open ended’ fraudulent scheme to obtain funds from [Plaintiffs] and third party financial companies.” Pis.’ Br. 30.
```
---
### 5. 18 U.S.C. § 922 (Unlawful Acts — Firearms)
#### PASS — [`18usc922/us-519-172-old-chief-v-us.case`](file:///home/mma/repos/neochart-wt-argon2/neov2/cases/18usc922/us-519-172-old-chief-v-us.case)
- **Case:** *Old Chief v. United States*, 519 U.S. 172 (1997) (`/us/519/0172-01`)
- **1. Outcome (`result`) Direction Check (Checked First):**
- Criminal § 922(g)(1) prosecution (United States is claimant); Ninth Circuit affirmed conviction; Supreme Court reverses and remands because admitting the full record of the prior assault conviction over defendant's offer to stipulate to felon status was an abuse of discretion under Fed. R. Evid. 403. `result remanded` is **correct**.
```text
$ python3 neov2/tools/casedsl.py text /us/519/0172-01 30350 30520
[30370] The judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Ninth Circuit for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. It is so ordered.
```
- **2. Role, Scope, Holding, Polarity, Basis, Route Fit & Quote Audit:**
- **Clean Extraction:** Majority (`@0..38846`) and dissent (`@38846..57254`) spans are explicitly segmented. Case-level `role rule-announced` and block-level `element status.g1 : not-reached`, `scope procedural`, `route proof-of-prior-conviction`, `pattern defendant-offers-to-stipulate-felon-status` accurately reflect that Old Chief's qualifying felon status was undisputed and the sole question was the evidentiary method of proving `status.g1` before the jury. In an evidentiary-stipulation case (`scope procedural`, `route proof-of-prior-conviction`), the prior offense charged in the indictment (`@1768..1872`), the defendant's offer to stipulate (`@2590..2790`), and the Government's introduction of the judgment record at trial (`@3901..4031`) are the operative facts of the Rule 403 issue.
---
#### FIX — [`18usc922/f-supp-3d-162-1106-us-v-dunlap.case`](file:///home/mma/repos/neochart-wt-argon2/neov2/cases/18usc922/f-supp-3d-162-1106-us-v-dunlap.case)
- **Case:** *United States v. Dunlap*, 162 F. Supp. 3d 1106 (D. Or. 2016) (`/f-supp-3d/162/1106-01`)
- **1. Outcome (`result`) Direction Check (Checked First):**
- Post-trial sentencing opinion following a § 922(g)(1) conviction, adjudicating only whether prior Oregon convictions qualify as "violent felonies" under the ACCA, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e), and "crimes of violence" under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1. Because no element of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) is adjudicated in this opinion, `role background` and `result not-decided` are **correct**.
```text
$ python3 neov2/tools/casedsl.py text /f-supp-3d/162/1106-01 37700 38082
[37701] CONCLUSION
[37712] Defendant does not have the required three predicate convictions for “violent felonies” under the ACCA and shall not be subject to the mandatory minimum sentence provided by 18 U.S.C. § 924(e). Defendant’s felony convictions for Assault III and Coercion shall be considered “crimes of violence” for the purpose of determining his base offense level under the Guidelines.
```
- **2. Role, Scope, Holding, Polarity, Basis, Route Fit & Quote Audit:**
- **Defect (`recital-as-fact`):**
1. Line 23 in `element possession : not-reached` quotes `fact @2913..3064 [supports] | Defendant was tried before a jury and, on May 15, 2015, Defendant was convicted of unlawful possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g).` That is a procedural recital of the prior trial verdict, not a fact of firearm possession.
2. Line 32 in `element status.g1 : satisfied [law]` (`role comparator`, `route _comparator`) quotes `fact @31029..31255 [cuts-against] | Defendant contends that the court cannot rely on the maximum statutory term of imprisonment in determining whether a conviction meets the threshold requirement, but must look instead to Oregon’s sentencing grid and guidelines.` That is the defendant's legal argument about statutory vs. guidelines maximums, not a case fact.
```text
$ python3 neov2/tools/casedsl.py text /f-supp-3d/162/1106-01 2880 3100
[2718] The indictment in this case alleged that on January 13, 2014, Defendant knowingly and unlawfully possessed a handgun and that Defendant had at least three prior convictions for violent felonies. Defendant was tried before a jury and, on May 15, 2015, Defendant was convicted of unlawful possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g).
$ python3 neov2/tools/casedsl.py text /f-supp-3d/162/1106-01 31000 31300
[30815] Robbery III and Assault III are designated as “Class C” felonies. ORS 164.395(2) (Robbery III); ORS 163.165(2)(a) (Assault III). The maximum term of imprisonment for a Class C felony is five years. ORS 161.605(3). Defendant contends that the court cannot rely on the maximum statutory term of imprisonment in determining whether a conviction meets the threshold requirement, but must look instead to Oregon’s sentencing grid and guidelines.
```
- **3. Comparison: `master` vs `origin/fable2-partial-review` (`3103ac1`):**
- `origin/fable2-partial-review` removes both `fact @2913..3064 [supports]` and `fact @31029..31255 [cuts-against]` and updates the glosses. **`origin/fable2-partial-review` is right.**
```text
$ git diff de4fd04..origin/fable2-partial-review -- neov2/cases/18usc922/f-supp-3d-162-1106-us-v-dunlap.case
@@ -20,8 +20,7 @@ law 18usc922 (g)(1)
result not-decided
element possession : not-reached
- fact @2913..3064 [supports] | Defendant was tried before a jury and, on May 15, 2015, Defendant was convicted of unlawful possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g).
- gloss Jury conviction on 2015-05-15 for possessing a handgun on 2014-01-13 is procedural background only; this opinion is a sentencing memorandum on ACCA § 924(e) and Guidelines § 2K2.1 enhancements and reviews no trial or possession issue.
+ gloss Jury conviction on 2015-05-15 for possessing a handgun on 2014-01-13 (@2913) is procedural background only; this opinion is a sentencing memorandum on ACCA § 924(e) and Guidelines § 2K2.1 enhancements and reviews no trial or possession issue.
element status.g1 : satisfied [law]
role comparator
@@ -29,11 +28,10 @@ element status.g1 : satisfied [law]
pattern state-statutory-maximum-not-guidelines-grid-controls-exceeding-one-year
fact @30815..30934 [supports] | Robbery III and Assault III are designated as “Class C” felonies. ORS 164.395(2) (Robbery III); ORS 163.165(2)(a) (Assault III).
fact @30935..31028 [supports] | The maximum term of imprisonment for a Class C felony is five years. ORS 161.605(3).
- fact @31029..31255 [cuts-against] | Defendant contends that the court cannot rely on the maximum statutory term of imprisonment in determining whether a conviction meets the threshold requirement, but must look instead to Oregon’s sentencing grid and guidelines.
```
---
### 6. 18 U.S.C. § 924 (Penalties — Firearms in Drug Trafficking / Crimes of Violence)
#### PASS — [`18usc924/us-516-137-bailey-v-us.case`](file:///home/mma/repos/neochart-wt-argon2/neov2/cases/18usc924/us-516-137-bailey-v-us.case)
- **Case:** *Bailey v. United States*, 516 U.S. 137 (1995) (`/us/516/0137-01`)
- **1. Outcome (`result`) Direction Check (Checked First):**
- Consolidated criminal appeals from § 924(c)(1) convictions (United States is claimant); D.C. Circuit en banc affirmed both convictions under the "use" prong; Supreme Court holds "use" requires active employment, reverses both judgments on "use" for insufficient evidence, and remands for consideration of the "carry" prong. `result remanded` is **correct**.
```text
$ python3 neov2/tools/casedsl.py text /us/516/0137-01 24890 25231
[24399] ... No evidence showed that Robinson had actively employed the firearm. We reverse both judgments.
[24928] Bailey and Robinson were each charged under both the “use” and “carry” prongs of § 924(c)(1). Because the Court of Appeals did not consider liability under the “carry” prong of § 924(c)(1) for Bailey or Robinson, we remand for consideration of that basis for upholding the convictions.
[25214] It is so ordered.
```
- **2. Role, Scope, Holding, Polarity, Basis, Route Fit & Quote Audit:**
- **Clean Extraction:** Unanimous opinion by Justice O'Connor (`@0..25231`). The two consolidated petitioners (`party p1` Bailey: gun in bag in locked car trunk; `party p2` Robinson: unloaded gun in locked footlocker in bedroom closet) are cleanly separated into two `element use : not-satisfied [no-evidence]` blocks under `route active-employment`, with accurate `[supports]`, `[cuts-against]`, and `[cuts-against absent]` facts, active-employment rules, and sufficiency holdings (`@24210..24398`, `@24901..24927`). The Court's active-employment examples (`element use : not-reached`, `role rule-announced`) and the `carry` remand (`element carry : not-reached`, `role rule-announced`, `held @25022..25213`) are likewise clean.
---
#### FIX — [`18usc924/f2d-890-1363-us-v-ocampo.case`](file:///home/mma/repos/neochart-wt-argon2/neov2/cases/18usc924/f2d-890-1363-us-v-ocampo.case)
- **Case:** *United States v. Ocampo*, 890 F.2d 1363 (7th Cir. 1989) (`/f2d/890/1363-01`)
- **1. Outcome (`result`) Direction Check (Checked First):**
- Criminal appeal by Ocampo and Escobar from jury convictions under 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1) and 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) (United States is claimant); Seventh Circuit affirms all convictions. `result claimant-won` is **correct**.
```text
$ python3 neov2/tools/casedsl.py text /f2d/890/1363-01 1350 1475
[22] ... We find no merit in any of the defendants’ contentions and, therefore, affirm the convictions.
```
- **2. Role, Scope, Holding, Polarity, Basis, Route Fit & Quote Audit:**
- `element carry : satisfied [proved]` (`route vehicle`) and `element during-relation : satisfied [proved]` (`route protection-of-drugs-or-proceeds`) accurately capture Ocampo kicking the loaded revolver under the passenger seat and conducting counter-surveillance for the 10-kilogram cocaine shipment.
- **Defect 1 (`held-as-fact`):** In `element use : satisfied [proved]` (line 39), `fact @21820..22075 [supports] | Given the value of the cocaine and the known risks of conducting an illegal drug business, the jury could reasonably infer from all of the evidence that Ocampo possessed a loaded revolver in order to protect himself, his partner, and his cocaine shipment.` quotes the Seventh Circuit's legal sufficiency conclusion about what the jury could reasonably infer, rather than a case fact.
- **Defect 2 (`recital-as-fact` / missing `held`):** In `element predicate.drug : satisfied [proved]` (`decider court-below`, `review none`, lines 59–66), the sole quote is `fact @22..367 [supports] | Defendants Juan Carlos Ocampo and Luis Alfonso Escobar were each convicted by a federal jury of conspiring to possess with intent to distribute approximately ten kilograms of cocaine (Count I), possessing with intent to distribute approximately ten kilograms of cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and 18 U.S.C. § 2 (Counts II and III)`—the opening procedural recital of the jury verdict—with no `held` line.
```text
$ python3 neov2/tools/casedsl.py text /f2d/890/1363-01 21800 22135
[21509] ... Given the value of the cocaine and the known risks of conducting an illegal drug business, the jury could reasonably infer from all of the evidence that Ocampo possessed a loaded revolver in order to protect himself, his partner, and his cocaine shipment. See United States v. Diaz, 864 F.2d 544, 549 (7th Cir.1988).
$ python3 neov2/tools/casedsl.py text /f2d/890/1363-01 0 380
[0] FLAUM, Circuit Judge.
[22] Defendants Juan Carlos Ocampo and Luis Alfonso Escobar were each convicted by a federal jury of conspiring to possess with intent to distribute approximately ten kilograms of cocaine (Count I), possessing with intent to distribute approximately ten kilograms of cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and 18 U.S.C. § 2 (Counts II and III)...
```
---
### 7. 21 U.S.C. § 841 (Controlled Substances — Manufacture, Distribution, PWID)
#### FIX — [`21usc841/us-500-453-chapman-v-united-states.case`](file:///home/mma/repos/neochart-wt-argon2/neov2/cases/21usc841/us-500-453-chapman-v-united-states.case)
- **Case:** *Chapman v. United States*, 500 U.S. 453 (1991) (`/us/500/0453-01`)
- **1. Outcome (`result`) Direction Check (Checked First):**
- Criminal § 841(a) / § 841(b)(1)(B)(v) sentencing appeal by defendants (United States is claimant); Seventh Circuit en banc affirmed the 5-year mandatory minimum sentences based on the 5.7-gram combined weight of LSD and blotter paper; Supreme Court affirms. `result claimant-won` is **correct**.
```text
$ python3 neov2/tools/casedsl.py text /us/500/0453-01 23190 23510
[23201] We hold that the statute requires the weight of the carrier medium to be included when determining the appropriate sentence for trafficking in LSD, and that this construction is neither a violation of due process nor unconstitutionally vague. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is
[23497] Affirmed.
```
- **2. Role, Scope, Holding, Polarity, Basis, Route Fit & Quote Audit:**
- `element quantity : satisfied [law]` (`route mixture-or-substance`, `pattern carrier-medium-weight-included`) accurately captures the 5.7g gross / 50mg net weights (`@4253..4502`), the physical commingling of LSD crystals in the blotter paper (`@12276..12410`), the mixture/container rules (`@5764..5887`, `@13259..13406`), and the holdings (`@11045..11216`, `@23201..23443`).
- **Defect (`recital-as-fact`, flagged by `guard[G2-recital]`):**
1. Line 37 in `defense x-due-process-arbitrary-sentence : not-satisfied [law]` quotes `fact @1325..1498 [supports] | 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.` This fails `casedsl.py check --strict` (`guard[G2-recital]`) and is acknowledged in the file's own `misfit` on line 61 (`"The only fact under the due-process block is the petitioners' contention, to which polarity does not really apply."`).
2. Line 24 in `element quantity : satisfied [law]` (`fact @480..659 [supports] | Petitioners Richard L. Chapman, John M. Schoenecker, and Patrick Brumm were convicted of selling 10 sheets (1,000 doses) of blotter paper containing LSD, in violation of § 841(a).`) is also a prior-conviction recital redundant with line 25 (`@4253..4502`).
```text
$ python3 neov2/tools/casedsl.py text /us/500/0453-01 1300 1520
[480] Petitioners Richard L. Chapman, John M. Schoenecker, and Patrick Brumm were convicted of selling 10 sheets (1,000 doses) of blotter paper containing LSD, in violation of § 841(a). ... 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.
```
---
#### PASS — [`21usc841/f2d-701-1349-united-states-v-vera.case`](file:///home/mma/repos/neochart-wt-argon2/neov2/cases/21usc841/f2d-701-1349-united-states-v-vera.case)
- **Case:** *United States v. Vera*, 701 F.2d 1349 (11th Cir. 1983) (`/f2d/701/1349-01`)
- **1. Outcome (`result`) Direction Check (Checked First):**
- Criminal appeal by three defendants (Vera, Posada, Romero) from jury convictions under 21 U.S.C. § 846 and § 841(a)(1) (United States is claimant); Eleventh Circuit affirms all convictions. `result claimant-won` is **correct**.
```text
$ python3 neov2/tools/casedsl.py text /f2d/701/1349-01 43650 43745
[43378] ... Accordingly, the district court did not err in denying Romero’s motion to suppress.
[43729] AFFIRMED.
```
- **2. Role, Scope, Holding, Polarity, Basis, Route Fit & Quote Audit:**
- **Clean Extraction:** Separate blocks for `party p1` (Vera) and `party p2` (Posada) on `element knowledge : satisfied [proved]` (`route circumstantial`) and `element possession : satisfied [proved]` (`route constructive` for Posada as owner of the stash shed and driver of the van; `route actual` for Vera physically loading the large boxes of quaaludes), plus `element act.distribute : satisfied [proved]` (`route delivery-or-transfer`, `party p3`, `count c1`), all cite concrete record facts, black-letter Fifth/Eleventh Circuit rules, and the panel's sufficiency holdings. The separate 21 U.S.C. § 846 conspiracy count (`count c2`) is properly isolated under `role background` so it does not pollute § 841 element instances.
```text
$ python3 neov2/tools/casedsl.py text /f2d/701/1349-01 22630 22845
[22460] Viewing the evidence as a whole in the light most favorable to the government, we cannot say that a reasonable jury must necessarily have a reasonable doubt as to Vera’s guilt. A reasonable jury could have concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that the evidence established that Vera knowingly participated in the conspiracy and knowingly possessed and distributed the quaaludes.
```
---
### 8. 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights)
#### FIX — [`42usc1983/us-503-115-collins-v-harker-heights.case`](file:///home/mma/repos/neochart-wt-argon2/neov2/cases/42usc1983/us-503-115-collins-v-harker-heights.case)
- **Case:** *Collins v. City of Harker Heights*, 503 U.S. 115 (1992) (`/us/503/0115-01`)
- **1. Outcome (`result`) Direction Check (Checked First):**
- Civil § 1983 suit by sanitation worker's widow against municipality; Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal affirmed by Fifth Circuit and affirmed by Supreme Court on the ground that the complaint alleged no Due Process violation. `result claimant-lost` is **correct**.
```text
$ python3 neov2/tools/casedsl.py text /us/503/0115-01 19840 20245
[19841] In sum, we conclude that the Due Process Clause does not impose an independent federal obligation upon municipalities to provide certain minimal levels of safety and security in the workplace and the city’s alleged failure to train or to warn its sanitation department employees was not arbitrary in a constitutional sense. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is therefore affirmed.
[20225] It is so ordered.
```
- **2. Role, Scope, Holding, Polarity, Basis, Route Fit & Quote Audit:**
- `element deprivation.substantive-due-process : not-satisfied [pleaded]` (`route affirmative-duty`, `pattern government-employer-unsafe-workplace`), `element policy.failure-to-train : satisfied [assumed]` (`route _whole`), and `element person : satisfied [law]` (`route municipality`) are well-structured and accurate.
- **Defect (`recital-as-fact`):** In `element x-abuse-of-governmental-power : not-reached` (`role rule-announced`, lines 40–48), line 44 quotes `fact @1815..2080 [cuts-against] | It did not reach the question whether the city had violated Collins’ constitutional rights because it denied recovery on the ground that there had been no “abuse of governmental power,” which the Fifth Circuit had found to be a necessary element of a § 1983 action.` That is a procedural/doctrinal recital of the Fifth Circuit's legal rationale below, not a case fact.
```text
$ python3 neov2/tools/casedsl.py text /us/503/0115-01 1740 2100
[527] ... The District Court dismissed the complaint on the ground that a constitutional violation had not been alleged. No. W-89-CA-168 (WD Tex., Oct. 30, 1988), App. 20. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed on a different theory. 916 F. 2d 284 (1990). It did not reach the question whether the city had violated Collins’ constitutional rights because it denied recovery on the ground that there had been no “abuse of governmental power,” which the Fifth Circuit had found to be a necessary element of a § 1983 action. Id., at 287-288, and n. 3.
```
---
#### FIX — [`42usc1983/f3d-813-938-henderson-v-glanz.case`](file:///home/mma/repos/neochart-wt-argon2/neov2/cases/42usc1983/f3d-813-938-henderson-v-glanz.case)
- **Case:** *Henderson v. Glanz*, 813 F.3d 938 (10th Cir. 2015) (`/f3d/813/0938-01`)
- **1. Outcome (`result`) Direction Check (Checked First):**
- Civil § 1983 Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect suit by jail inmate against Detention Officers Johnson and Thomas and Sheriff Glanz; defendants take interlocutory appeal from denial of summary judgment on qualified immunity; Tenth Circuit dismisses Johnson's and Glanz's appeals for lack of interlocutory jurisdiction (leaving plaintiff's claims against Johnson and Glanz alive for trial) and reverses the denial of qualified immunity as to Thomas. `result mixed` is **correct**.
```text
$ python3 neov2/tools/casedsl.py text /f3d/813/0938-01 36650 36800
[36651] We therefore dismiss the appeals of DO Johnson and Sheriff Glanz for lack of jurisdiction. We reverse the district court’s denial of qualified immunity to DO Thomas.
```
- **2. Role, Scope, Holding, Polarity, Basis, Route Fit & Quote Audit:**
- `defense qualified-immunity : satisfied [law]` (`party p1` DO Thomas, `route clearly-established-law`) and `element x-interlocutory-jurisdiction : satisfied [law]` (`party p6` DO Thomas, `scope procedural`) are well-supported.
- **Defect (`recital-as-fact` & incomplete `decider court-below` block):**
1. In `element deprivation.eighth-amendment : satisfied [triable]` (`decider court-below`, `review none`, `party p4` DO Johnson and Sheriff Glanz, lines 52–59), there is **no `held` quote** (even though the opinion states the district court's holdings at `@22405..22462` and `@25943..26148`), no facts at all regarding Sheriff Glanz's notice of risk, and the sole `fact` line (`fact @22254..22514 [supports] | Ms. Henderson asserted in her summary judgment briefing and asserts on appeal that DO Johnson knew the door to the tub room was unlocked when she left the medical unit hallway. DO Johnson’s argument does not accept as true Ms. Henderson’s version of this fact.`) is a briefing-posture recital borrowed from the appellate-jurisdiction discussion (as Fable notes in `misfit` lines 88 and 93).
2. In `element x-interlocutory-jurisdiction : not-satisfied [law]` (`scope procedural`, `party p5`, line 66), `fact @26149..26410 [cuts-against] | Instead of accepting these facts as true or viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Ms. Henderson, Defendants argue Sheriff Glanz had no notice of a risk of assault because there had been no documented instances of inmate-on-inmate assault in the Jail.` likewise quotes Defendants' appellate brief argument rather than a fact.
```text
$ python3 neov2/tools/casedsl.py text /f3d/813/0938-01 22120 22530
[22254] Ms. Henderson asserted in her summary judgment briefing and asserts on appeal that DO Johnson knew the door to the tub room was unlocked when she left the medical unit hallway. DO Johnson’s argument does not accept as true Ms. Henderson’s version of this fact. The district court did not make any factual determination about DO Johnson’s knowledge of the door being unlocked, but it did determine that DO Johnson was aware of a substantial risk of harm to Ms. Henderson.
$ python3 neov2/tools/casedsl.py text /f3d/813/0938-01 26140 26420
[25472] ... Based on these facts, the district court determined that a reasonable jury could find Sheriff Glanz had notice of a risk of assault to inmates and that he was unresponsive to this risk.
[26149] Instead of accepting these facts as true or viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Ms. Henderson, Defendants argue Sheriff Glanz had no notice of a risk of assault because there had been no documented instances of inmate-on-inmate assault in the Jail.
```
---
### 9. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2 (Title VII — Unlawful Employment Practices)
#### FIX — [`42usc2000e-2/us-509-502-st-marys-honor-center-v-hicks.case`](file:///home/mma/repos/neochart-wt-argon2/neov2/cases/42usc2000e-2/us-509-502-st-marys-honor-center-v-hicks.case)
- **Case:** *St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks*, 509 U.S. 502 (1993) (`/us/509/0502-01`)
- **1. Outcome (`result`) Direction Check (Checked First):**
- Civil Title VII disparate-treatment bench trial for employer; Eighth Circuit reversed and ordered judgment for plaintiff as a matter of law because the district court disbelieved the employer's proffered reasons; Supreme Court reverses the Eighth Circuit and remands. `result remanded` is **correct**.
```text
$ python3 neov2/tools/casedsl.py text /us/509/0502-01 37700 37815
[37666] The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
[37795] It is so ordered.
```
- **2. Role, Scope, Holding, Polarity, Basis, Route Fit & Quote Audit:**
- Majority (`@0..43197`) and dissent (`@43198..60000`) spans are cleanly segmented, and the `role rule-announced` blocks on `pretext` and `because-of` accurately capture the holding that disbelief of the employer's proffered reasons permits, but does not compel, a finding of intentional discrimination.
- **Defect 1 (`recital-as-fact`):** In `element employer-reason : satisfied [conceded]` (line 53), `fact @5786..6065 [supports] | Respondent does not challenge the District Court’s finding that petitioners sustained their burden of production by introducing evidence of two legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for their actions: the severity and the accumulation of rules violations committed by respondent.` quotes the appellate concession of the District Court's Step 2 finding as a `fact` (whereas the parallel Step 1 concession sentence at `@3132..3561`, `"Petitioners do not challenge the District Court's finding..."`, was tagged `held` on line 29, and the actual disciplinary violations are narrated at `@1245..1829`).
- **Defect 2 (`held-as-fact` / missing `held`):** In `element pretext : not-satisfied [proved]` (`decider trial-judge`, `review none`, lines 71–82), the block has **no `held` line** because line 80 tags the District Court's ultimate conclusion (`@7534..7739`, `"In short, the District Court concluded that 'although [respondent] has proven the existence of a crusade to terminate him, he has not proven that the crusade was racially rather than personally motivated.'"`) as `fact [cuts-against absent]` instead of `held` (or pairing `held @7339..7533` / `@7534..7739` with the underlying facts).
```text
$ python3 neov2/tools/casedsl.py text /us/509/0502-01 5780 6075
[5786] Respondent does not challenge the District Court’s finding that petitioners sustained their burden of production by introducing evidence of two legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for their actions: the severity and the accumulation of rules violations committed by respondent. 756 F. Supp., at 1250.
$ python3 neov2/tools/casedsl.py text /us/509/0502-01 7315 7750
[6786] ... It nonetheless held that respondent had failed to carry his ultimate burden of proving that his race was the determining factor in petitioners’ decision first to demote and then to dismiss him. In short, the District Court concluded that “although [respondent] has proven the existence of a crusade to terminate him, he has not proven that the crusade was racially rather than personally motivated.” Id., at 1252.
```
---
#### FIX — [`42usc2000e-2/f3d-527-358-doe-v-cars-protection-plus.case`](file:///home/mma/repos/neochart-wt-argon2/neov2/cases/42usc2000e-2/f3d-527-358-doe-v-cars-protection-plus.case)
- **Case:** *Doe v. C.A.R.S. Protection Plus, Inc.*, 527 F.3d 358 (3d Cir. 2008) (`/f3d/527/0358-01`)
- **1. Outcome (`result`) Direction Check (Checked First):**
- Civil Title VII / Pregnancy Discrimination Act discriminatory-discharge suit by employee; District Court granted summary judgment to employer; Third Circuit reverses and remands for trial. `result remanded` is **correct**.
```text
$ python3 neov2/tools/casedsl.py text /f3d/527/0358-01 33360 33670
[33349] IV. Conclusion
[33364] Doe has established a prima facie case. Furthermore, she has pointed to sufficient evidence from which a fact-finder could infer that the CARS’ non-discriminatory reason for firing Doe was a pretext. The District Court’s order will be reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
```
- **2. Role, Scope, Holding, Polarity, Basis, Route Fit & Quote Audit:**
- The first-impression statutory holding (`element protected-class : satisfied [law]`, `route sex`, `held @8326..8402 | We now hold that the term "related medical conditions" includes an abortion.`) and the three `element because-of : satisfied [triable]` blocks (`t1` `route comparator`, `t2` `route decision-maker-remark`, `t3` `route temporal-proximity`) are well-structured.
- **Defect 1 (`recital-as-fact`):** In `element protected-class : satisfied [law]` (line 32), `fact @4676..4762 [supports] | Instead, she argues that she was discharged because she underwent a surgical abortion.` quotes plaintiff's legal theory/contention as a `fact` (while lines 30–31 already quote the facts of the pregnancy termination recommendation and notice to supervisor Kohl).
- **Defect 2 (`basis-error`):** In `element employer-reason : satisfied [triable]` (line 77), the employer's *McDonnell Douglas* Step 2 burden of production on its own summary-judgment motion is coded with epistemic basis `[triable]`, whereas the Third Circuit holds as a matter of law (`[law]`) that `"Unexcused absence from work is a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for terminating employment."` (`held @29871..29968`).
- **Defect 3 (`held-as-fact`):** In `element pretext : satisfied [triable]` (line 89), `fact @32278..32512 [supports] | The conversation between Kohl and Babich, in which Kohl remarked that Doe had not taken responsibility for her abortion indicates that Kohl may have had other reasons for terminating Doe’s employment than her “abandonment” of her job.` quotes the Third Circuit's analytical inference about pretext (the underlying fact of that conversation was already quoted at `@22396..22740`).
```text
$ python3 neov2/tools/casedsl.py text /f3d/527/0358-01 4650 4770
[4441] ... Instead, she argues that she was discharged because she underwent a surgical abortion.
$ python3 neov2/tools/casedsl.py text /f3d/527/0358-01 29700 29975
[29561] ... Specifically, CARS asserts that Doe was fired because neither she nor her husband called to request Friday, August 11th or the week of August 14th off from work. Unexcused absence from work is a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for terminating employment.
$ python3 neov2/tools/casedsl.py text /f3d/527/0358-01 32270 32520
[32108] ... The conversation between Kohl and Babich, in which Kohl remarked that Doe had not taken responsibility for her abortion indicates that Kohl may have had other reasons for terminating Doe’s employment than her “abandonment” of her job. These are questions for a jury — not ones that should be resolved on summary judgment.
```