“H-17 archive handover completed on 12 June 2026 at 09:20. Signed: training coordinator.”
No time zone is recorded. The exercise does not establish how this log was prepared.
Read → decide → review
Each exercise includes everything needed to identify the review problem. You do not need outside research. The explanation offers one defensible handoff; other wording can work if it preserves the evidence and the unresolved question.
01 / Conflicting dates
The summary quietly chooses a day.
A supervisor asks for the date of the same archive handover, H-17. The three documents below are the entire exercise file. “Most recent document wins” is not an instruction in the brief.
Synthetic inputs / H-17
“For the record: handover H-17 took place on 13 June at 09:20.”
The sender does not explain the difference or state that the earlier log is being corrected.
“H-17 boxes in the archive room.”
The image cannot establish a day or independently confirm either account.
Review note / not a proficiency score
Preserve the conflict before resolving it.
D1 supports an attributed statement about 12 June; D2 supports a conflicting attributed statement about 13 June. D3 fixes neither date. A later document could be a correction, but this file does not say it is. Missing time-zone data does not establish that time zones explain the difference.
“D1 records H-17 on 12 June at 09:20; D2 records the same handover on 13 June at 09:20. D3 has no usable date metadata. The date remains unresolved. Ask the source custodian to reconcile D1 and D2; do not use this summary to establish a deadline.”
Editorial acceptance rubric
- Names the same event and both conflicting dates.
- Separates source statements from an established event date.
- Does not invent a correction, time zone or evidentiary hierarchy.
- Gives the reviewer a precise question and a boundary on use.
A different sentence can meet the rubric. Silently choosing either date cannot.
02 / Source support
The authority exists. The permission does not.
A trainee cites an actual document within this invented dossier to justify releasing a draft. Your task is to check the proposition against the text, not merely confirm the document title.
Synthetic inputs / fictitious training policy
“Trainees may use approved tools to prepare a first draft in the practice environment. Before any draft is released outside the training team, the assigned supervisor must review the citations and approve the release. Course completion does not waive this requirement.”
This memo and board are invented. They are not a court, case, regulator or real professional authority.
“Trainee R completed the introductory tool course.”
The record contains no supervisor approval for the draft in question.
Review note / not a legal determination
Check the sentence the source is being asked to support.
A1 distinguishes preparing a first draft from releasing it. The draft reverses that limitation. A2 proves course completion within the exercise; A1 expressly says completion does not waive review. Neither source supports a blanket ban on drafting.
“Memo 4 §2 permits approved-tool first drafts in the practice environment, but outside release requires the assigned supervisor’s citation review and approval. R’s completion record does not satisfy or waive that condition. Hold outside release and obtain the required approval.”
Editorial acceptance rubric
- Identifies the unsupported proposition, not just a citation problem.
- Preserves the distinction between preparation and release.
- Uses the relevant limiting language and explains why the completion record is insufficient.
- Does not invent approval or replace the source with a broader prohibition.
In real work, governing authority and its current treatment require appropriate research. This exercise tests only the supplied fictional text.
03 / Source freshness and ownership
“Someone should check” leaves the work unfinished.
A team is preparing a practice release on 8 September 2026. You receive a procedure summary and a source-status note. The task is to make the unresolved work actionable without claiming it has already been done.
Synthetic inputs / no real release
“Use checklist A for practice release.”
The copy was downloaded in March. Its cover now carries a superseded stamp.
“Procedure v1 superseded. Procedure v2 governs practice releases from 1 September. Obtain the current copy from the procedure custodian.”
Procedure v2 is not included in this exercise. Its checklist requirements are unknown.
“We still need to check the current procedure. Owner: —. Due: —. Release review planned for 10 September.”
No one has accepted responsibility for obtaining or reviewing v2.
Review note / ownership is not assumed
A pending check needs a boundary and an accepted owner.
H2 establishes that v1 is superseded for this planned release. It does not tell you whether checklist A remains valid. H3 establishes a gap in ownership. Requesting an assignment is an action you can recommend; claiming that someone has accepted it would invent a fact.
“Release readiness unresolved. H1 is superseded per H2; v2 has not been obtained or checked. Request that the team lead confirm an owner by 9 September to obtain v2 from the custodian and record applicable requirements before the 10 September review. The proposed deadline is a coordination request, not an accepted commitment. If unresolved, escalate and do not mark the release approved.”
Editorial acceptance rubric
- Names the stale source, the current-source gap and their effect on readiness.
- Separates known status from unknown requirements.
- Requests an owner and a time-bound next action without inventing acceptance.
- Defines what happens if the check remains unresolved.
For this exercise, the team lead is a proposed assignment route. A real organization must supply its actual roles and approval process.
Keep the method / leave the synthetic result behind
A review record you can carry forward.
After comparing your decisions, check the review habits you have explicitly considered. These are self-recorded checks, not verified competencies. The record contains only fixed exercise labels and checkbox states; there is no place to enter client data.
Copy requires your browser’s clipboard permission. If unavailable, select the record beside this checklist and copy it manually.
No decisions compared yet. You can still print a blank checklist.
Context / framework, not endorsement
Why these checks?
Source evaluation, clear communication and supervision connect these exercises to legal work. The O*NET lawyer profile and paralegal profile describe occupational tasks. ABA Formal Opinion 512 (29 July 2024) discusses professional responsibilities when lawyers use generative AI. These sources provide context; they did not create, validate or endorse this lab. The fictional policy in exercise 2 is not drawn from an ABA rule.
This is an AI Vortex editorial exercise, dated 8 September 2026. No aggregate score is calculated. A chosen answer does not establish professional competence, employment suitability or the validity of a real legal conclusion.