Source: qa/wave2-cases-QA1.md
# QA1 Review: Wave-2 Case Instances
- **Auditor:** QA1 (`gemini-3.8-flash-high`)
- **Date:** 2026-11-10
- **Task Spec:** [`neov2/specs/qa_wave2cases.md`](file:///home/mma/repos/neochart/neov2/specs/qa_wave2cases.md)
- **Review Standard / Bar:** [`neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md`](file:///home/mma/repos/neochart/neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) (open actual opinion; verify fidelity of role, scope, holding, and variant labels beyond quote matching)
- **Pre-check Verification:**
- Ran `casedsl check neov2/cases` across the full corpus: **165 files, 2,182 quotes, 0 errors**.
- **Scope & Stratification:**
- Evaluated 12 `.case` files (2 files per statute across 6 statutes).
- Astra4's statutes (6 files): [`29 U.S.C. § 623`](file:///home/mma/repos/neochart/neov2/cases/29usc623/), [`21 U.S.C. § 846`](file:///home/mma/repos/neochart/neov2/cases/21usc846/), [`29 U.S.C. § 158`](file:///home/mma/repos/neochart/neov2/cases/29usc158/).
- Astra2's statutes (6 files): [`15 U.S.C. § 78j`](file:///home/mma/repos/neochart/neov2/cases/15usc78j/), [`15 U.S.C. § 1125`](file:///home/mma/repos/neochart/neov2/cases/15usc1125/), [`42 U.S.C. § 1981`](file:///home/mma/repos/neochart/neov2/cases/42usc1981/).
- Stratified specifically toward the complex edge cases and judgment calls flagged in [`neov2/cases/NOTES.md`](file:///home/mma/repos/neochart/neov2/cases/NOTES.md) and directory research logs (affirmative defenses vs prima facie impact, objective attempt vs intent, retrial sufficiency vs trial error, Section 10(j) interim relief vs final ULP enforcement, ultimate maker authority, SEC summary judgment without private reliance, product design secondary meaning rules, fair use defenses without confusion findings, comparator pleading vacatur, and shareholder standing under own-contract requirements).
---
## Executive Summary of Per-File Verdicts
| Statute | File | Short Name / Citation | Key Focus / Doctrinal Crux | Verdict |
|---|---|---|---|:---:|
| **29 U.S.C. § 623** | [`f3d-900-923-obrien-v-caterpillar.case`](file:///home/mma/repos/neochart/neov2/cases/29usc623/f3d-900-923-obrien-v-caterpillar.case) | *O'Brien v. Caterpillar Inc.* (900 F.3d 923) | Prima facie disparate impact satisfied, defeated by RFOA affirmative defense | **PASS** |
| **29 U.S.C. § 623** | [`f3d-914-480-kleber-v-carefusion.case`](file:///home/mma/repos/neochart/neov2/cases/29usc623/f3d-914-480-kleber-v-carefusion.case) | *Kleber v. CareFusion Corp.* (914 F.3d 480) | En banc holding that § 4(a)(2) disparate-impact excludes outside job applicants | **PASS** |
| **21 U.S.C. § 846** | [`f2d-525-881-oviedo.case`](file:///home/mma/repos/neochart/neov2/cases/21usc846/f2d-525-881-oviedo.case) | *United States v. Oviedo* (525 F.2d 881) | Subjective belief proved, but objective acts equivocal; attempt conviction reversed | **PASS** |
| **21 U.S.C. § 846** | [`f3d-934-1251-hawkins.case`](file:///home/mma/repos/neochart/neov2/cases/21usc846/f3d-934-1251-hawkins.case) | *United States v. Hawkins* (934 F.3d 1251) | Retrial permitted on all admitted evidence; conviction vacated for agent testimony; scoped procedural | **PASS** |
| **29 U.S.C. § 158** | [`f3d-894-0707-innout.case`](file:///home/mma/repos/neochart/neov2/cases/29usc158/f3d-894-0707-innout.case) | *In-N-Out Burger v. NLRB* (894 F.3d 707) | Presumptive § 8(a)(1) interference by button ban; special-circumstances defense failed | **PASS** |
| **29 U.S.C. § 158** | [`f-supp-792-1459-watson.case`](file:///home/mma/repos/neochart/neov2/cases/29usc158/f-supp-792-1459-watson.case) | *Watson v. Moeller Rubber Products* (792 F. Supp. 1459) | § 10(j) interim injunction; no final ULP finding; scoped background/procedural | **PASS** |
| **15 U.S.C. § 78j** | [`us-564-135-janus-v-first-derivative.case`](file:///home/mma/repos/neochart/neov2/cases/15usc78j/us-564-135-janus-v-first-derivative.case) | *Janus Capital Group v. First Derivative* (564 U.S. 135) | Rule 10b-5(b) maker attribution requires ultimate authority; adviser not maker | **PASS** |
| **15 U.S.C. § 78j** | [`f3d-935-721-sec-v-hui-feng.case`](file:///home/mma/repos/neochart/neov2/cases/15usc78j/f3d-935-721-sec-v-hui-feng.case) | *SEC v. Hui Feng* (935 F.3d 721) | Summary judgment for SEC affirmed on undisputed record; private elements omitted | **PASS** |
| **15 U.S.C. § 1125** | [`us-529-205-wal-mart-v-samara-brothers.case`](file:///home/mma/repos/neochart/neov2/cases/15usc1125/us-529-205-wal-mart-v-samara-brothers.case) | *Wal-Mart Stores v. Samara Bros.* (529 U.S. 205) | Product design distinctiveness requires secondary meaning; rule-announced / remanded | **PASS** |
| **15 U.S.C. § 1125** | [`f3d-932-589-sportfuel-v-pepsico.case`](file:///home/mma/repos/neochart/neov2/cases/15usc1125/f3d-932-589-sportfuel-v-pepsico.case) | *Sportfuel, Inc. v. Pepsico, Inc.* (932 F.3d 589) | Descriptive fair use defense established as a matter of law; confusion not reached | **PASS** |
| **42 U.S.C. § 1981** | [`f3d-927-81-hu-v-city-of-new-york.case`](file:///home/mma/repos/neochart/neov2/cases/42usc1981/f3d-927-81-hu-v-city-of-new-york.case) | *Hu v. City of New York* (927 F.3d 81) | Comparator pleading vacatur; own-contract and Comcast but-for causation not reached | **PASS** |
| **42 U.S.C. § 1981** | [`us-546-470-dominos-pizza-v-mcdonald.case`](file:///home/mma/repos/neochart/neov2/cases/42usc1981/us-546-470-dominos-pizza-v-mcdonald.case) | *Domino’s Pizza v. McDonald* (546 U.S. 470) | Plaintiff must have rights under the contract; shareholder lacks own-contract rights | **PASS** |
---
## Detailed Per-File Audit
### 1. 29 U.S.C. § 623 (ADEA) — Astra4
#### PASS — [`f3d-900-923-obrien-v-caterpillar.case`](file:///home/mma/repos/neochart/neov2/cases/29usc623/f3d-900-923-obrien-v-caterpillar.case) (*O'Brien v. Caterpillar Inc.*)
- **Doctrinal Context:** 900 F.3d 923 (7th Cir. 2018). In an ADEA disparate-impact challenge to a pension plan benefit liquidation, plaintiffs established that conditioning distribution on retirement eligibility was a specific employment practice that caused substantial statistical age disparity (mean age 61.57 vs 47.81; 93.4% of workers $\ge 55$ vs 1.4% $< 55$). However, Caterpillar prevailed on summary judgment by establishing the affirmative defense of Reasonable Factors Other than Age (RFOA).
- **Evaluation:**
- The annotation separates the prima facie case from the affirmative defense into three distinct blocks: `element neutral-practice : satisfied [law]`, `element age-disparity : satisfied [law]`, and `defense rfoa : satisfied [law]`.
- All three blocks carry `scope merits`.
- Basis `[law]` accurately represents the Seventh Circuit's legal appraisal of undisputed benefit calculations and the employer's business cost justification under the relatively light RFOA burden (distinguished from Title VII business necessity).
- The file's `misfit` accurately notes: *"The prima facie impact issues are satisfied while the employer’s affirmative defense defeats liability. A single case outcome must not overwrite these opposite-polarity element findings."*
- Faithful to the opinion; no overstatement or conflation.
#### PASS — [`f3d-914-480-kleber-v-carefusion.case`](file:///home/mma/repos/neochart/neov2/cases/29usc623/f3d-914-480-kleber-v-carefusion.case) (*Kleber v. CareFusion Corp.*)
- **Doctrinal Context:** 914 F.3d 480 (7th Cir. 2019, en banc). An outside job applicant brought an ADEA disparate-impact claim under 29 U.S.C. § 623(a)(2) challenging a job posting requirement limiting experience to 7 years. The en banc Seventh Circuit affirmed dismissal, holding that by its plain text § 4(a)(2) proscribes conduct that deprives or adversely affects "an employee" and does not extend to outside applicants for employment.
- **Evaluation:**
- Annotated as `defense impact-applicant-limit : satisfied [law]`, which corresponds directly to the statutory exception declared in `neov2/law/29usc623.law` (`exception impact-applicant-limit : exception`).
- Scoped as `merits` with `result claimant-lost`.
- Fact line `@24..100` correctly notes that Kleber was an unsuccessful applicant.
- Held line `@2643..2746` quotes the en banc majority's statutory holding: *"By its terms, § 4(a)(2) proscribes certain conduct by employers and limits its protection to employees."*
- The gloss and misfit properly disclose that only the en banc majority holding is encoded, that the truncated IR contains dissent material which was excluded, and that no broader treatment holding under § 4(a)(1) is asserted.
---
### 2. 21 U.S.C. § 846 (Attempt / Conspiracy) — Astra4
#### PASS — [`f2d-525-881-oviedo.case`](file:///home/mma/repos/neochart/neov2/cases/21usc846/f2d-525-881-oviedo.case) (*United States v. Oviedo*)
- **Doctrinal Context:** 525 F.2d 881 (5th Cir. 1976). A landmark decision on the requirements for criminal attempt under 21 U.S.C. § 846. Defendant sold an uncontrolled substance (procaine hydrochloride) represented as heroin. The jury found that Oviedo subjectively believed the substance was heroin. The Fifth Circuit reversed the conviction, holding that subjective intent alone cannot establish an attempt; the defendant's objective acts, apart from statements or indirect evidence of intent, must unequivocally corroborate criminal purpose.
- **Evaluation:**
- The annotation elegantly separates subjective intent from the substantial step: `element attempt-intent : satisfied [proved]` vs `element substantial-step : not-satisfied [no-evidence]`.
- Polarities on the fact lines are accurate: Oviedo's statements to the undercover agent are tagged `[supports]` intent, while the uncontrolled nature of the substance is tagged `[cuts-against]` the objective criminal character of the acts.
- The quotes precisely capture the court's rationale: accepting the jury's finding of subjective belief (`@1922..1989`), but holding that objective acts consistent with a noncriminal enterprise do not mark conduct as criminal in nature (`@10599..10734`).
- Result is properly coded as `claimant-lost` (from the standpoint of the prosecuting government).
#### PASS — [`f3d-934-1251-hawkins.case`](file:///home/mma/repos/neochart/neov2/cases/21usc846/f3d-934-1251-hawkins.case) (*United States v. Hawkins*)
- **Doctrinal Context:** 934 F.3d 1251 (11th Cir. 2019). On multi-count appeal including a § 846 conspiracy charge, the Eleventh Circuit vacated Hawkins's convictions because improper lay/hearsay testimony from the lead case agent was admitted in error. However, before remanding for retrial, double jeopardy principles required the court to evaluate whether the trial evidence as admitted was legally sufficient to sustain a verdict. The court held the evidence sufficient to permit retrial.
- **Evaluation:**
- Coded as `element agreement : satisfied [law]` with **`scope procedural`** and `result remanded`.
- The `scope procedural` designation is crucial: under *Lockhart v. Nelson*, retrial-permitting sufficiency review considers all evidence admitted by the trial court (even evidence admitted erroneously).
- Marking this `scope procedural` prevents this retrial-permitting legal holding from entering downstream databases as a final substantive merits instance of guilt.
- The two held quotes (`@45809..46034` and `@46035..46208`) explicitly tie the rejection of the sufficiency challenge to the remand for a new trial.
---
### 3. 29 U.S.C. § 158 (NLRA Unfair Labor Practices) — Astra4
#### PASS — [`f3d-894-0707-innout.case`](file:///home/mma/repos/neochart/neov2/cases/29usc158/f3d-894-0707-innout.case) (*In-N-Out Burger, Inc. v. NLRB*)
- **Doctrinal Context:** 894 F.3d 707 (5th Cir. 2018). In-N-Out prohibited employees from wearing any pins or stickers on their uniforms, including buttons supporting the "Fight for $15" campaign. The Fifth Circuit enforced the NLRB's order finding a Section 8(a)(1) violation, holding that blanket uniform restrictions are presumptively unlawful interference with Section 7 rights, and substantial evidence supported the Board's rejection of In-N-Out's "special circumstances" defense based on public image and food safety.
- **Evaluation:**
- Accurately decomposed into `element interference : satisfied [law]` and `defense special-circumstances : not-satisfied [no-evidence]`, both with `scope merits`.
- Facts cite the employer's uniform button prohibition (`[supports]` interference), while highlighting that the employer required its own larger Christmas pins (`[cuts-against]` the defense) and made no pre-restriction inspection for safety (`[cuts-against]` the defense).
- Quotes `@14284..14453` and `@24270..24419` capture the presumptive unlawfulness and the Board's rejection of the public image justification.
- Result is properly set to `claimant-won` from the perspective of the charging party/NLRB.
#### PASS — [`f-supp-792-1459-watson.case`](file:///home/mma/repos/neochart/neov2/cases/29usc158/f-supp-792-1459-watson.case) (*Watson v. Moeller Rubber Products, Inc.*)
- **Doctrinal Context:** 792 F. Supp. 1459 (N.D. Miss. 1992). An NLRB Regional Director sought a temporary injunction under NLRA Section 10(j) pending administrative ULP proceedings regarding a successor employer's refusal to bargain. The district court ordered interim bargaining to preserve the status quo, but specifically emphasized that a Section 10(j) proceeding cannot decide whether an unfair labor practice actually occurred.
- **Evaluation:**
- The file appropriately sets `role background` at the case level, and annotates `element refusal-to-bargain : not-reached` with **`scope procedural`**.
- Rule quote `@11246..11482` explicitly records the district court's limitation: *"the district court may not decide whether an unfair labor practice has actually occurred, because this ultimate determination is reserved for the board..."*
- The gloss and misfit explicitly document that this interim-injunction record contributes zero merits instances to the § 158 database.
- Completely faithful to procedural reality and prevents distortion of the substantive ULP instance count.
---
### 4. 15 U.S.C. § 78j (Securities Exchange Act Rule 10b-5) — Astra2
#### PASS — [`us-564-135-janus-v-first-derivative.case`](file:///home/mma/repos/neochart/neov2/cases/15usc78j/us-564-135-janus-v-first-derivative.case) (*Janus Capital Group, Inc. v. First Derivative Traders*)
- **Doctrinal Context:** 564 U.S. 135 (2011). In a private securities fraud action under Rule 10b-5(b), shareholders sued mutual fund investment adviser JCM for false statements in the prospectuses of Janus Investment Fund. The Supreme Court held that the "maker" of a statement under Rule 10b-5 is the person or entity with ultimate authority over the statement; because JCM was a legally separate entity that lacked ultimate authority over the fund prospectuses, it was not the maker of the statements.
- **Evaluation:**
- Properly isolated to a single merits issue: `element statement : not-satisfied [pleaded]` with `theory Rule 10b-5(b) ultimate authority` and `variant statement-maker/independent-fund-adviser`.
- Facts clearly delineate corporate separateness (`@947..1080 [cuts-against]`) and the absence of any allegation that JCM filed the prospectuses or attributed them to itself (`@14412..14528 [cuts-against absent]`).
- Rule quote `@7684..7865` and held quote `@14939..15083` are verbatim and capture the Court's ultimate authority test.
- Gloss and misfit properly note that only majority maker attribution under Rule 10b-5(b) is decided, and that the subsequent *Lorenzo* decision on scheme liability under subsections (a) and (c) is kept distinct.
#### PASS — [`f3d-935-721-sec-v-hui-feng.case`](file:///home/mma/repos/neochart/neov2/cases/15usc78j/f3d-935-721-sec-v-hui-feng.case) (*SEC v. Hui Feng*)
- **Doctrinal Context:** 935 F.3d 721 (9th Cir. 2019). The SEC brought civil enforcement against an immigration attorney who promoted EB-5 regional center investments, received undisclosed commissions from regional centers, used family nominees to funnel overseas payments, and concealed that client fee rebates came from reductions in his own commissions. The Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the SEC on Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5.
- **Evaluation:**
- Faithfully encodes four issue blocks:
1. `element materiality : satisfied [law]` (undisclosed commission conflicts)
2. `element scienter : satisfied [law]` (admitted business decision not to disclose)
3. `element scheme : satisfied [law]` (fraud against regional centers via foreign nominee recruiters)
4. `element scheme : satisfied [law]` (fraud against clients by concealing that fee rebates were derived from commissions)
- Basis `[law]` accurately represents the court's affirmance of summary judgment on an established, undisputed record containing admissions and undisputed marketing contracts.
- Because this is an SEC civil enforcement action, the file avoids creating artificial private reliance or loss causation blocks.
- The misfit explains that the basis vocabulary lacks a specific token for summary judgment on undisputed evidence, and that `law` is used with this explicit caveat.
---
### 5. 15 U.S.C. § 1125 (Lanham Act § 43(a)) — Astra2
#### PASS — [`us-529-205-wal-mart-v-samara-brothers.case`](file:///home/mma/repos/neochart/neov2/cases/15usc1125/us-529-205-wal-mart-v-samara-brothers.case) (*Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Samara Bros.*)
- **Doctrinal Context:** 529 U.S. 205 (2000). Samara sued Wal-Mart for copying the design of its children's seersucker garments. The Second Circuit affirmed an infringement verdict based on inherent distinctiveness. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded, announcing the categorical rule that unregistered product design can never be inherently distinctive and is protectable under Lanham Act § 43(a) only upon a showing of secondary meaning.
- **Evaluation:**
- Properly classified at the case level as `role rule-announced` with `result remanded`.
- Block is annotated as `element protected-mark : not-reached` with `variant product-design/secondary-meaning-required`.
- This is an exemplary representation: because Samara had not submitted secondary meaning to the jury, the Court did not hold that secondary meaning was absent; it held that inherent distinctiveness was legally unavailable and remanded.
- By marking `not-reached` under `role rule-announced`, the file prevents this famous landmark from being ingested as a negative factual finding on protectability.
- The gloss and misfit clearly explain the design-versus-packaging distinction and note the preservation of the original OCR text (`protective` for `protectable`).
#### PASS — [`f3d-932-589-sportfuel-v-pepsico.case`](file:///home/mma/repos/neochart/neov2/cases/15usc1125/f3d-932-589-sportfuel-v-pepsico.case) (*Sportfuel, Inc. v. Pepsico, Inc.*)
- **Doctrinal Context:** 932 F.3d 589 (7th Cir. 2019). SportFuel sued PepsiCo/Gatorade for trademark infringement under Lanham Act § 43(a) over the slogan "Gatorade The Sports Fuel Company." The Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Gatorade based entirely on the statutory descriptive fair use defense (15 U.S.C. § 1115(b)(4)), explicitly declining to adjudicate whether SportFuel established a likelihood of confusion.
- **Evaluation:**
- Accurately structured into two blocks:
1. `defense descriptive-fair-use : satisfied [law]` (all three elements of fair use established as a matter of law on summary judgment: non-trademark use, descriptive meaning, and good faith).
2. `element likely-confusion : not-reached` (`role rule-announced`).
- Fact lines capture key undisputed evidence: Gatorade's prominent house mark (`[supports]`), widespread industry descriptive use of "sports fuel" (`[supports]`), and Gatorade's "TM" registration attempt (`[cuts-against]`).
- The gloss highlights that claimed reverse confusion was context only and was not decided by the court.
- Avoids the pitfall of treating fair use as an element of infringement or claiming a finding on consumer confusion.
---
### 6. 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (Equal Rights Under the Law) — Astra2
#### PASS — [`f3d-927-81-hu-v-city-of-new-york.case`](file:///home/mma/repos/neochart/neov2/cases/42usc1981/f3d-927-81-hu-v-city-of-new-york.case) (*Hu v. City of New York*)
- **Doctrinal Context:** 927 F.3d 81 (2d Cir. 2019). Asian-owned construction contractors alleged that a city building inspector engaged in a racially motivated enforcement campaign against them. The district court dismissed the § 1981 claims under Rule 12(b)(6). The Second Circuit vacated the dismissal of the § 1981 claim, holding that plaintiffs plausibly alleged differential treatment of similarly situated white contractors on the same jobsite.
- **Evaluation:**
- Carefully captures the single ground of appellate decision: `element racial-intent : satisfied [pleaded]` with `variant circumstantial-proof/same-site-different-race-comparator`.
- Crucially sets the remaining three potential § 1981 requirements to **`not-reached`**:
1. `element own-contract : not-reached` (ownership of contracts between Hu and his entities not adjudicated).
2. `element state-remedial-route : not-reached` (applicability of *Jett* / § 1983 vehicle not reached).
3. `element but-for-causation : not-reached` (pre-dates *Comcast*; no ultimate but-for determination).
- The gloss accurately notes that while statistical evidence of building code inspections was alleged, the court's holding rested on the specific same-site comparator (pool of water on the 34th Avenue jobsite).
- Faithfully avoids importing a completed merits judgment from an interlocutory Rule 12(b)(6) comparator pleading vacatur.
#### PASS — [`us-546-470-dominos-pizza-v-mcdonald.case`](file:///home/mma/repos/neochart/neov2/cases/42usc1981/us-546-470-dominos-pizza-v-mcdonald.case) (*Domino’s Pizza, Inc. v. McDonald*)
- **Doctrinal Context:** 546 U.S. 470 (2006). McDonald, the sole shareholder and president of JWM Investments, sued Domino's under § 1981 alleging that Domino's breached contracts with JWM due to racial animus against McDonald, causing him personal injuries and emotional distress. The Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit, holding that a § 1981 plaintiff must have or seek rights under the impaired contractual relationship; because corporation and agency law establish that a shareholder/officer has no personal rights under corporate contracts, McDonald failed to state a claim.
- **Evaluation:**
- Annotated as `element own-contract : not-satisfied [law]` with `party McDonald personally` and `variant corporate-separateness/shareholder-agent-contract-rights`.
- Block 2 captures statutory interpretation of the 1991 Civil Rights Act amendment (`contractual-impairment : not-reached` with `role rule-announced`).
- Facts clearly distinguish between corporate contracting entities and personal claims (`@307..457 [cuts-against]`, `@683..838 [cuts-against]`, `@2676..2986 [supports]`).
- Held quote `@9057..10154` is verbatim and captures the core holding that the corporate form denies the shareholder personal rights under corporate contracts.
- The misfit explains that the intended third-party beneficiary argument was expressly reserved by the Court, and personal injury allegations cannot bootstrap an own-contract finding.
---
## Synthesis & Cross-Cutting Observations
1. **Role and Scope Discipline:**
- Both Astra4 and Astra2 consistently adhered to the v1 schema improvements that emerged from Round 1 and QA2's findings.
- Non-merits rulings are rigorously quarantined:
- `scope procedural`: Retrial sufficiency in *Hawkins* and § 10(j) interim bargaining in *Watson*.
- `role rule-announced`: Secondary meaning requirement in *Wal-Mart* and post-formation contract scope in *Domino's Pizza*.
- `role background`: Section 10(j) interim relief in *Watson*.
- This prevents procedural interlocutory rulings, evidentiary sufficiency thresholds, and abstract legal tests from polluting the database as affirmative merits findings.
2. **Decomposition of Prima Facie Cases vs Affirmative Defenses:**
- *O'Brien v. Caterpillar* and *In-N-Out v. NLRB* successfully decouple prima facie elements from affirmative defenses.
- When an employer prevails on an affirmative defense (RFOA in *O'Brien*, special circumstances in *In-N-Out*), the prima facie elements that were found satisfied are not overwritten or suppressed, preserving the dual polarity of the decision.
3. **Restraint on Single-Issue Opinions:**
- Single-issue appeals (*Janus* on maker attribution, *Kleber* on applicant coverage, *Domino's Pizza* on own-contract rights, *Sportfuel* on fair use) are kept strictly to their adjudicated element. Unlitigated or unaddressed elements are either omitted or marked `not-reached`, avoiding any assumption that an overall affirmance or reversal implies a ruling on every element in the statutory claim.
4. **Basis Precision on Summary Judgment:**
- In *SEC v. Hui Feng*, *O'Brien*, and *Sportfuel*, both authors properly utilized `[law]` to capture summary judgment rulings decided on established, undisputed records as a matter of law, while documenting the vocabulary limitation in `gloss` and `misfit`.
---
## Overall Assessment & Verdict
All 12 audited case files across the six assigned statutes (*29 U.S.C. § 623*, *21 U.S.C. § 846*, *29 U.S.C. § 158*, *15 U.S.C. § 78j*, *15 U.S.C. § 1125*, and *42 U.S.C. § 1981*) satisfy the rigorous standards established in [`cases-QA2.md`](file:///home/mma/repos/neochart/neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md).
- Role, scope, holding, basis, fact polarity, and variant labels faithfully reflect the underlying judicial opinions.
- None of the 12 files contains a material holding/label mismatch requiring a `FIX`.
- All 12 files pass inspection.
**Overall Verdict: PASS**