Testing memorandum, §11 · Deck evidence map · Source inventory and hashes

Legal Graph citation record

CJ-TR-20261104, Version 1.2 · Appendix source schedule · Retrieved November 4, 2026

Disclosure: Sam Rogers builds and maintains the PAICE Legal Graph through PAICE.work PBC. These are publisher-curated references, not independent corroboration. Court documents support legal propositions; CJ-TR exhibits support the observed model behavior. The graph supplies relationships and provenance. Recorded review dates and admission statuses are preserved.

Subsequent research: November 4 case-treatment review and access limits.

Evidence trail and research limits

Mata court order, ECF 54 (CJ-SRC-02; current mirrored copy CJ-LG-10) → curated proceeding AIEL-2023-002 (CJ-LG-01) → determination (CJ-LG-02) → Human Oversight category (CJ-LG-03/04). This is a topic relationship. It does not establish that a statute indexed under the category governed Mata or Garner.

Garner remains directly cited to CJ-SRC-01. No Garner name match was found in the retrieved published native corpus, whose generated_at field remains September 22, 2026 (CJ-LG-08). That bounded absence says nothing about whether an authority exists or the completeness of legal research.

PubLedge’s Utah coverage comparison is dated October 14, 2026 and expressly distinguishes inventory comparison from source-document review and clause mapping. Use that passage to illustrate visible research limits, not to certify the current status of every agreement.

Retrieval and source consistency were checked by Codex with AI assistance. No paid provider call, graph-source admission, human verification renewal, citator clearance or exhaustive subsequent-history search occurred. SHA-256 identifies the retained bytes; it does not authenticate a source or establish legal accuracy.

Citation form

AI Incident Law, “Mata v. Avianca,” determination aiel-2023-002-determination, AIEL-2023-002; recorded verified date September 1, 2026; admission_status legacy-unreviewed; retrieved November 4, 2026; CJ-LG-02, retained snapshot and SHA-256 below. Cite the court order separately for the legal proposition.

Materials and exact locators

Source checks

{
  "mataPdfTextComparison": {
    "method": "pdftotext -layout on the previously retained source and newly retrieved graph-linked PDF",
    "all43PagesTextIdentical": true,
    "textSha256": "8616fbb6414716b9dce266cf9536503cfc80c758f1f056491fe72619b4dfd73d",
    "priorPdfSha256": "68c7e61823d8dd1540e1b8ce61ce3da99d601f032e4ea22825eba224a78c4d32",
    "newPdfSha256": "68c7e61823d8dd1540e1b8ce61ce3da99d601f032e4ea22825eba224a78c4d32",
    "limit": "PDF bytes differ; extracted text matches. No authenticity or current-treatment certification."
  },
  "mataSubstantivePassages": "Opinion pp.1\u20132: gatekeeping role and bad-faith qualification; p.34 conclusion (a)\u2013(d): notices and joint-and-several penalty. No claim that AI use alone caused sanctions or that citation conduct caused dismissal.",
  "garner": "Court-authored opinion text retrieved using web research tool. Existing source PDF retained as CJ-SRC-01; Rule 40 outcome and \u00b610 n.4 intent distinction preserved. Direct HTTP mirror retrieval returned 403; no retry. No exhaustive subsequent-treatment review.",
  "graphRelationships": "CJ-LG-01 hasDetermination resolves to CJ-LG-02; CJ-LG-02 source resolves to CJ-LG-10 and anchors resolves to CJ-LG-03; CJ-LG-03 corresponds to Human Oversight explanatory page CJ-LG-04.",
  "coverage": "CJ-LG-05 #coverage-review exists; Oct 14, 2026 is the published comparison date, not a new legal review date.",
  "illustration": "CJ-LG-12 contains the role labels and responsibility qualification shown in image 2; screenshot capture time remains unknown."
}

Supplied overview illustration

Image 2 supplied by Sam Rogers on November 4, 2026. Capture time unknown. Illustration, not independent proof of source accuracy or deployed functionality. Image 1 remains linked in the material schedule.