Source: qa/law-wave2-QA2-pinned.md
# QA2 — pinned wave-2 LAW re-verification Reviewed the requested LAW files and CBOCS case record in the detached `origin/master` worktree. The audited commit is **`3dd534abee124d71fb3698168052e4ad1d7fcbf5`** (`git rev-parse HEAD`). Line references below refer to that commit. Verdicts are tied to the quoted model text and distinguish resolved prior findings from any remaining scope defect. ## Results ### 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) — **PASS; prior FIXes resolved** - The government-use defense is now wired into the g(1)-(8) branches while preserving g(9): claim formulas at `18usc922.law:9,12,15` use `(status.g9 | (status & !government-use))`; `:167-172` identifies the §925(a)(1) exception and its statutory exclusions. This resolves the missing cross-section exception. - The fugitive and protective-order definitions are now cited: `:33-36` xrefs §921(a)(15), and `:98-102` xrefs §921(a)(32). For g(4), `:58-68` correctly uses 27 C.F.R. §478.11 definitions; `:62` explicitly corrects the earlier mistaken §921(a)(4) reference, which defines “destructive device,” not the mental-health terms. - The user branch is now separately bounded: `:42-47` anchors Purdy’s regularity/temporal formulation and says it is Ninth Circuit-specific, not a nationwide fixed lookback. Addiction is a separate alternative at `:49-52`; the user gloss does not make that test an addiction requirement. The old QA2 spot report’s alleged missing xrefs/status construction is therefore **retracted for this pinned tree**. The catalogue correctly avoids pretending Hemani itself defines “unlawful user.” ### 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b) — **PASS; prior FIXes resolved** - The shared transaction element now includes both statutory security categories and the swap alternative: `15usc78j.law:66-73` quotes the securities-based swap clause and xrefs the statutory definition. - The separate extension at `:80-85` anchors both concluding statutory paragraphs, including the limit excluding prophylactic reporting/recordkeeping rules from the first extension. - The private-only purchaser/seller doctrine is now explicit in the private claim at `:11-12` and as a separate `purchaser-seller` element at `:87-94`; `:71` clearly distinguishes it from the statutory transaction nexus. The previous spot findings on swap coverage and the missing Blue Chip limitation are **retracted for this pinned tree**. ### 29 U.S.C. § 623 — **FIX; prior gaps mostly resolved, one formula overreach remains** Resolved prior findings: - Claim formulas at `29usc623.law:8,11,17,20,23,26` now invoke the shared route-conditioned `f-exceptions` gate. The gate’s scope and exclusions are spelled out at `:36-38` and `:184-191`; the formulas no longer omit (f)(1)-(2) for agency, union, advertising, impact, or wage-reduction routes. RFOA is limited to a legally cognizable impact theory; `:38` says it does not excuse intentional theories. - Pension accrual is now a separate statutory route: `:29-30` defines `pension-accrual`, while `:193-215` anchors §623(i)(1), separates plan safeguards, and describes its limits. Public-safety and executive-retirement routes are now modeled at `:217-232`; the scope note at `:234-237` identifies remaining specialized exclusions. - Applicant coverage is no longer an `exception` or universal negative conjunct: `:32-34` makes it a jurisdiction-conditioned applicability constraint, and `:87-91` labels the corresponding element as a judicial coverage limit. - Union-practice has distinct anchors for each statutory branch: `:131-138` quotes and identifies §623(c)(1), (2), and (3). Residual **FIX**: `good-cause` is still applied too broadly in formulas. The statute’s §623(f)(3) text is limited to an **employer** discharging or disciplining an individual for good cause; the catalogue quotes that narrow text at `:167-170`. But `disparate-treatment` at `:8` negates `good-cause` across hiring, discharge, and all employment terms, and the agency/union claims at `:17,20` also negate it. Those formulas imply that this employer-only discharge/discipline defense is relevant to agency and union actions and to non-discipline employer actions. Qualify the defense by actor and action or remove it from inapplicable routes. This is a new, narrower finding; it does not revive the prior (f)(1)-(2), pension, public-safety, applicant-label, or §623(c) anchoring defects. ### 18 U.S.C. § 1341 — **PASS; prior mailing-completeness FIX resolved** `18usc1341.law:47-57` now anchors the Postal Service matter, private/commercial interstate-carrier deposit, taking/receiving, and knowingly caused delivery modes separately. The same block adds Hubbard’s ordinary-course/foreseeability construction and explicitly separates causation from furtherance. The execution-purpose anchor and cases are distinct at `:59-66`; its gloss confines Hagen and Gross to their respective furtherance contexts. This resolves the former partial-anchor finding. No new invented mail-act branch was found in the reviewed claim. ### 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) — **PASS; prior penalty FIX resolved** - The base claims preserve the two different nexuses: use/carry with “during and in relation to” and possession with “in furtherance” (`18usc924.law:9-18`, `:67-85`). - Rosemond is identified as an alternative §2 attribution route, not a principal-liability conjunct (`:87-92`). Its storage as an `element` is a catalogue typing choice, but the claim formulas do not require it and the gloss does not invent a standalone §924(c) element. - The firearm-type penalty node is now an `or` with both the 10-year short-barreled-rifle/shotgun branch and the 30-year branch (`:116-120`). The semiautomatic-assault-weapon phrase is date-qualified. - The armor-piercing consequences are split into the 15-year base and resulting-murder/manslaughter branches (`:149-153`, `:172-185`). Penalties remain outside the base liability claims. The former missing weapon-tier and incomplete §924(c)(5) death-branch findings are **retracted for this pinned tree**. ### 29 U.S.C. § 158(a) — **PASS; prior union-security FIX resolved, Mastro is properly scoped** The complete §8(a)(3) proviso is quoted at `29usc158.law:114-120`. Its model breaks out the 30-day waiting period (`:146-149`), representation and rescission conditions (`:151-155`), same-terms membership condition (`:157-160`), and dues-only protection (`:162-165`). The construction-industry route preserves the final §8(a)(3) proviso (`:167-171`). This resolves the earlier incomplete-conditions finding. Mastro Plastics is now expressly limited to the §8(d)(4) employee-status consequence: `:136-143` quotes that status-loss clause, cites *Mastro Plastics*, and warns against extending the qualification to health-care §8(g) or mixed-purpose strikes. This is properly separated from §8(a)(3) union security; no invented union-security or general strike exception was found. ### CBOCS West — **PASS; prior case-record FIX resolved** The remedies mismatch is corrected in `neov2/cases/42usc1981/us-553-442-cbocs-west-v-humphries.case`: `:27-34` records the decided remedial-independence rule as `satisfied [law]` with its procedural scope and explains it is not a damages award or factual-liability finding. A distinct block at `:36-39` leaves actual relief not reached. The correction preserves the unresolved factual retaliation questions at `:18-25`. This resolves the prior CBOCS finding; no case file was edited for this report. ## Verification `NEOV2_CORPUS=/home/mma/repos/neochart/neochartdocroot python3 neov2/tools/lawdsl.py check neov2/law` — 15 LAW files, 388 statutory quotes, 421 case-rule quotes, zero errors. This establishes source/quote and DSL validity, not full doctrinal completeness. This pinned review used the line-level content identified above; the only remaining FIX in these requested checks is the §623(f)(3) actor/action overreach.