Source checks

Objective

Check entailment, publisher control, independence, recency and reproducibility. The controlled asset is the source worksheet. Completion means the firm can inspect the work, reproduce the check and continue without depending on an unexportable vendor view.

When to use this procedure

Run this SOP when claim wording and proposed citation needs a new baseline, a correction or a scheduled review. Do not begin because a dashboard has issued a generic warning. Write the decision the procedure is meant to support. That keeps the work bounded and gives the quality gate a real pass condition.

Assign one operator and one approver for the source worksheet. The same person may fill both roles for a small firm, but the worksheet should still separate the act from the approval. Attorney review is required whenever published text could state law, characterize a charge, describe a defense or expose a client fact.

Inputs

Procedure

1. Open the control record

   Create the source worksheet under firm ownership. Write the market, practice scope, responsible person and review date before changing anything.

2. Capture the starting state

   Inspect claim wording and proposed citation. Save the raw export or source copy and note any field that cannot be observed.

3. Set the acceptance rule

   Define what counts as complete, which value must remain fixed, and who can approve an exception. Put the rule in the worksheet.

4. Perform the work

   Test publisher control, directness and date. Make one traceable change at a time when the system allows it, then log who acted and when.

5. Test the result

   Repeat the observation with the same settings. Compare the output with the acceptance rule and retain archived source and entailment note.

6. Close or recover

   If the gate passes, prepare the handoff. If it fails, restore the last known state where possible and open a blocker record.

Asset-specific record

For Source checks, the first inspection is claim wording and proposed citation. Save that state before acting and name the person who can confirm it. The working action is to test publisher control, directness and date. Put that sentence in the task record so a later operator can distinguish the intended change from incidental edits made during the same session.

The proof file is archived source and entailment note. Give it the procedure number and observation date, then store it with the source material used for the decision. If the platform has no export, capture the complete visible settings and account context. A screenshot can show a state; it cannot replace an available raw file used for a calculation.

Asset closeout

The deliverable is accept, qualify or reject decision. Review it against the starting state and acceptance rule before transfer. The firm should receive an editable or exportable copy under its control, along with the next review date. Record any dependency that remains open and the person responsible for resolving it.

Stop the closeout when the source cannot be identified or accessed. Preserve the failed state and write the expected result beside the actual one. If a repair changes the observation method, close the old version as inconclusive and open a dated procedure. That keeps the original baseline intelligible.

Quality gate for Source checks

Approve the source worksheet only when a second operator can reproduce claim wording and proposed citation and reach the same disposition. The reviewer must locate archived source and entailment note, identify who approved it and state the limit that travels with the result. Return the Source checks file if a conclusion depends on an unrecorded setting or a vendor-only screen.

Scenario test for Source checks

Run a dry test on the source worksheet before declaring this procedure ready. Begin with claim wording and proposed citation and give the test file to someone who did not perform the setup. That reviewer should be able to locate the starting record, identify its date and explain which field the procedure may change. If those answers depend on a verbal explanation from the operator, the Source checks package is not ready for repeat use.

Next, ask the reviewer to follow this working instruction: test publisher control, directness and date. Compare the resulting observation with archived source and entailment note. A useful comparison names the unchanged settings as well as the changed field. It also records an absent value as absent; it does not fill a blank from memory or copy a later value back into the baseline. File the review beside the source worksheet so the test travels with the work.

Acceptance example

A passing Source checks file produces accept, qualify or reject decision that another firm-authorized operator can open and continue. The package identifies the approval rule, links to archived source and entailment note and gives the next review a calendar date. The receiving operator can tell which source controls the fact and which worksheet contains the observation. No private case detail is needed to understand the result.

A failed example begins when the source cannot be identified or accessed. Leave that state visible in the source worksheet record. Assign the repair to the person who controls the source, then repeat claim wording and proposed citation under the recorded settings. Do not replace the failed copy with the repaired one. The two files show what changed, and they let the approver decide whether the original acceptance rule still fits the Source checks procedure.