CONTEXT(CLONE)
Sign in

Trace a changed legal definition through the statute book

For: Legislative drafter, government lawyer or policy adviser preparing an amending bill

Pattern: Hierarchical decompositionNeeds a connectorDesigned for 30 to 600 agents
Get early accessSign in to use

The pain today

Changing one defined term can ripple through acts, regulations and guidance that use or cross-refer to it. Consequential amendments are found by search and memory, and the missed one turns up in court or in Parliament.

The ask

“We plan to change the definition of this term in this act. Find every act, regulation and statutory guidance that uses the term or refers to the section, working down from acts to parts to provisions. For each provision, say whether it relies on the current definition and what the change would do to it. Quote the text.”

Plain words, as you would say it to a colleague. Edit it to fit your case before you send it.

What you attach or connect

  • Current and proposed definition text
  • Consolidated legislation in the affected areas
  • Statutory guidance and codes that cite the act

The unit of work

One worker task per one provision that uses or cites the term.

Why a swarm fits

The statute book is a tree of acts, parts and provisions. Each leaf needs the provision, the old and new definitions and little else. Branches are independent and each level is verified before roll-up.

Not for

Legal advice on the effect of the change, or case law analysis. A term used in one short act does not need it.

The decision tree

6 typed decisions, each with an action for every answer

At fixed moments in a run, the engine puts one narrow question to a decision model. The decision model never writes text: it answers yes or no with a probability, picks from listed options, or gives a score, about a small slice of the material. The engine then does exactly what this tree says, which is what makes the run auditable. The thresholds are the template's design values, not measured results.

  1. Planner, while planning

    Split or keep serialYes or no, with a probability

    While planning

    Does this instrument use the term or cite the section in more than one part or schedule?

    Sees only: The search hits for one instrument, by part

    Why: Splits an instrument only when its hits are spread across parts.

    • Yes: 0.60 or higherthenSplit the work
    • Unsure: 0.40 up to 0.60thenKeep serial
    • No: below 0.40thenKeep serial

  2. Split or keep serialYes or no, with a probability

    While planning

    Does this provision refer onward to another instrument for the meaning of the term?

    Sees only: One provision's text

    Why: Extends the tree along real cross-references instead of by keyword alone.

    • Yes: 0.60 or higherthenSplit the work
    • Unsure: 0.40 up to 0.60thenKeep serial
    • No: below 0.40thenKeep serial

  3. Scope checkYes or no, with a probability

    Before work starts on a unit

    Is the quoted text from the consolidated version currently in force, according to its version note?

    Sees only: The provision's version note and in-force date

    Why: Avoids analysing repealed or not-yet-commenced text.

    • Yes: 0.60 or higherthenAccept
    • Unsure: 0.30 up to 0.60thenEscalate to a strong model
    • No: below 0.30thenSkip this unit

  4. After workers, the judge checks

    Evidence checkA choice among options

    After a worker answers

    Does this provision define the term itself, apply the act's definition by reference, or use the term with no stated definition?

    Sees only: One provision and the interpretation section of its instrument

    Why: Separates provisions that inherit the change from those insulated from it.

    • Applies the act's definition by referencethenAccept
    • Defines the term itselfthenSkip this unit
    • Uses the term with no stated definitionthenMark unresolved

  5. Evidence checkYes or no, with a probability

    After a worker answers

    Does the cross-reference in this provision cite the section being amended, by number and act title?

    Sees only: One provision's cross-reference and the citation of the amended section

    Why: Follows references to the cited text rather than trusting the label.

    • Yes: 0.85 or higherthenAccept
    • Unsure: 0.50 up to 0.85thenEscalate to a strong model
    • No: below 0.50thenReject and retry

The fleet: who does what

Model tiers by role, not brands: you choose the models. Strong reasoning models plan and reconcile, small fast models do the wide work, and the judge is a decision model from a different family, so it does not share the workers' blind spots.

  1. Planner

    A strong reasoning model builds the tree of candidate instruments and follows cross-references to extend it.

    Decisions here:1. Split or keep serial2. Split or keep serial3. Scope check

  2. Workers

    Small fast workers from an open-weight family read one provision and state how it uses the term, with quotes.

    Designed for 30 to 600 agents, one worker task per one provision that uses or cites the term. Each worker receives only its own unit.

  3. Judge, from a different model family

    A decision model from a different family checks whether the provision relies on this definition or defines the term itself.

    Decisions here:4. Evidence check5. Evidence check

  4. Reconciler

    A strong reasoning model rolls up per instrument, lists candidate consequential amendments and keeps arguable cases.

  5. Accountable person

    The responsible government lawyer owns the legal effect analysis; the drafter owns the text of every consequential amendment.

    Decisions here:6. Person decides

Checked before anything is accepted

  • Each provision is quoted from the consolidated version with its in-force date
  • Provisions with their own definition of the term are separated from those relying on the act
  • Cross-references are followed to the cited text, not assumed from the label

What comes back

  • Provision list by instrument with use of the term and quotes
  • Candidate consequential amendments
  • Provisions where reliance on the definition is arguable
  • Instruments searched, for the completeness record

What to measure

  • Affected provisions confirmed by the drafter
  • Affected provisions found later that were missed
  • Lawyer hours per instrument reviewed
  • Cost per provision

Names of measures only. No result is claimed for this template.

Templates open in the workspace chat with the ask filled in. Nothing runs until you send it.

Get early accessSign in to use

More in Public sector and policy

Code consultation responses by question and keep minority views

For: Policy analyst or consultation lead at a ministry, regulator or municipality

A public consultation brings thousands of free-text responses, many from campaigns, some from experts with one decisive point.

Pattern: Map, verify, reduceNeeds scale6 decisionsDesigned for 40 to 800 agents

Prepare tender evaluation evidence with two independent readings

For: Procurement officer or evaluation panel chair in a public contracting authority

Evaluators must score long submissions against published criteria and defend every score if challenged.

Pattern: Cross-examinationNeeds live models6 decisionsDesigned for 6 to 300 agents