{
  "schema_version": "1.0",
  "release_version": "1.25.0",
  "reviewed_date": "2026-08-11",
  "claim_status": "SOURCE_GOVERNANCE",
  "canonical_human_page": "/corrections/",
  "truth_boundary": "Publication/source-governance records only. A status here does not itself determine external legal effect. Official primary authority controls external-law propositions.",
  "records": [
    {
      "id": "CURRENT-US-TX-UETA",
      "status": "CURRENT",
      "title": "Texas UETA current source family",
      "source_keys": [
        "us_tx_ueta_322_002_005",
        "us_tx_ueta_322_009_014"
      ],
      "predecessor_ids": [],
      "successor_ids": [],
      "note": "Current Texas state authority reviewed for electronic-agent definitions, attribution, and automated transaction formation.",
      "reviewed_on": "2026-08-09",
      "next_review_on": "2027-08-09",
      "when_review_due": "REVIEW_DUE"
    },
    {
      "id": "CURRENT-US-DE-UETA",
      "status": "CURRENT",
      "title": "Delaware UETA current source family",
      "source_keys": [
        "us_de_ueta_12a_102_105",
        "us_de_ueta_12a_109_114"
      ],
      "predecessor_ids": [],
      "successor_ids": [],
      "note": "Current Delaware state authority reviewed with explicit scope/exclusion boundaries.",
      "reviewed_on": "2026-08-09",
      "next_review_on": "2027-08-09",
      "when_review_due": "REVIEW_DUE"
    },
    {
      "id": "CURRENT-US-NY-ESRA",
      "status": "CURRENT",
      "title": "New York ESRA current source family",
      "source_keys": [
        "us_ny_esra_302_309"
      ],
      "predecessor_ids": [],
      "successor_ids": [],
      "note": "Current New York Article 3 electronic-signature/record authority; no UETA electronic-agent terminology is inferred.",
      "reviewed_on": "2026-08-09",
      "next_review_on": "2027-08-09",
      "when_review_due": "REVIEW_DUE"
    },
    {
      "id": "REVIEW-NY-ADM-SUNSET",
      "status": "REVIEW_DUE",
      "title": "New York automated-decision Article 5 scheduled sunset",
      "source_keys": [
        "us_ny_automated_decision_article5"
      ],
      "predecessor_ids": [],
      "successor_ids": [],
      "note": "Current statute carries a repeal date of July 1, 2028; future publication must reverify before or after that date.",
      "reviewed_on": "2026-08-09",
      "next_review_on": "2026-08-09",
      "when_review_due": "REVIEW_DUE",
      "scheduled_transition_on": "2028-07-01",
      "scheduled_transition_status": "REVIEW_DUE",
      "scheduled_transition_note": "Current statutory text states repeal July 1, 2028; publication must reverify then rather than automatically assume post-date law."
    },
    {
      "id": "CHANGE-IL-ECSA-UETA",
      "status": "CHANGED",
      "title": "Illinois electronic-transactions publication authority changed",
      "source_keys": [
        "us_il_ecsa_5_ilcs_175_repealed",
        "us_il_ueta_815_333_2_14",
        "us_il_ueta_815_333_9"
      ],
      "predecessor_ids": [
        "SUPERSEDED-IL-ECSA"
      ],
      "successor_ids": [
        "CURRENT-IL-UETA"
      ],
      "note": "Active publication moved from a research citation to repealed 5 ILCS 175 toward current 815 ILCS 333 authority; provenance remains preserved.",
      "reviewed_on": "2026-08-09",
      "next_review_on": "2026-08-09",
      "when_review_due": "CHANGED"
    },
    {
      "id": "CURRENT-IL-UETA",
      "status": "CURRENT",
      "title": "Illinois UETA current source family",
      "source_keys": [
        "us_il_ueta_815_333_2_14",
        "us_il_ueta_815_333_9"
      ],
      "predecessor_ids": [
        "SUPERSEDED-IL-ECSA"
      ],
      "successor_ids": [],
      "note": "Current Illinois state authority used for active electronic-agent/attribution propositions.",
      "reviewed_on": "2026-08-09",
      "next_review_on": "2027-08-09",
      "when_review_due": "REVIEW_DUE"
    },
    {
      "id": "SUPERSEDED-IL-ECSA",
      "status": "SUPERSEDED",
      "title": "Former Illinois Electronic Commerce Security Act",
      "source_keys": [
        "us_il_ecsa_5_ilcs_175_repealed"
      ],
      "predecessor_ids": [],
      "successor_ids": [
        "CURRENT-IL-UETA"
      ],
      "note": "Historical provenance only; barred from owning a current proposition.",
      "reviewed_on": "2026-08-09",
      "next_review_on": null,
      "when_review_due": "SUPERSEDED"
    },
    {
      "id": "DISPUTED-RPT-HAGUE-ARBITRATION",
      "status": "DISPUTED",
      "title": "Research assertion that the Hague Judgments Convention supplies arbitration enforcement",
      "source_keys": [
        "hcch_judgments_2019",
        "uncitral_new_york_1958"
      ],
      "predecessor_ids": [],
      "successor_ids": [],
      "note": "Original research assertion is not accepted as active truth. Treaty scope separates qualifying court judgments from arbitration; the active synthesis rejects automatic Eviulon enforcement.",
      "reviewed_on": "2026-08-09",
      "next_review_on": "2026-08-09",
      "when_review_due": "DISPUTED"
    },
    {
      "id": "UNAVAILABLE-MJ-PRIMARY-REPORT",
      "status": "UNAVAILABLE",
      "title": "Expected Machine Jurisdiction.md source body",
      "source_keys": [],
      "predecessor_ids": [],
      "successor_ids": [],
      "note": "Expected source has not been supplied. No source body was reconstructed or invented.",
      "reviewed_on": "2026-08-09",
      "next_review_on": "2026-08-09",
      "when_review_due": "UNAVAILABLE"
    },
    {
      "id": "REVIEW-UK-ICO-DUAA",
      "status": "REVIEW_DUE",
      "title": "UK ICO controller/territorial guidance after DUAA changes",
      "source_keys": [
        "uk_ico_controller_processor_guidance",
        "uk_ico_territorial_scope_guidance"
      ],
      "predecessor_ids": [],
      "successor_ids": [],
      "note": "Official guidance is usable as guidance but flagged for currentness review after statutory changes.",
      "reviewed_on": "2026-08-09",
      "next_review_on": "2026-08-09",
      "when_review_due": "REVIEW_DUE"
    },
    {
      "id": "CURRENT-US-FAA-NYC",
      "status": "CURRENT",
      "title": "U.S. FAA Chapter 2 / New York Convention implementation",
      "source_keys": [
        "us_faa_ch2_new_york_convention",
        "uncitral_new_york_1958"
      ],
      "predecessor_ids": [],
      "successor_ids": [],
      "note": "Current federal U.S. implementation source for qualifying Convention arbitration agreements/awards and judicial confirmation; does not classify internal Eviulon outcomes as arbitral awards.",
      "reviewed_on": "2026-08-09",
      "next_review_on": "2027-08-09",
      "when_review_due": "REVIEW_DUE"
    },
    {
      "id": "CURRENT-US-NY-CPLR53",
      "status": "CURRENT",
      "title": "New York CPLR Article 53 foreign-country money-judgment recognition",
      "source_keys": [
        "us_ny_cplr_article53"
      ],
      "predecessor_ids": [],
      "successor_ids": [],
      "note": "Current New York state recognition framework for qualifying foreign-country court money judgments, subject to statutory threshold and non-recognition grounds.",
      "reviewed_on": "2026-08-09",
      "next_review_on": "2027-08-09",
      "when_review_due": "REVIEW_DUE"
    },
    {
      "id": "CURRENT-US-SCOTUS-GE-ENERGY",
      "status": "CURRENT",
      "title": "GE Energy — Convention/nonsignatory treaty-interpretation holding",
      "source_keys": [
        "us_scotus_ge_energy_2020",
        "us_faa_ch2_new_york_convention",
        "uncitral_new_york_1958"
      ],
      "predecessor_ids": [],
      "successor_ids": [],
      "note": "Controlling U.S. Supreme Court interpretation rejects a categorical treaty bar on domestic equitable-estoppel doctrines; application of estoppel remained for remand.",
      "reviewed_on": "2026-08-09",
      "next_review_on": "2027-08-09",
      "when_review_due": "REVIEW_DUE",
      "authority_level": "US_SUPREME_COURT",
      "issue_scope": "New York Convention interpretation regarding domestic equitable estoppel and nonsignatory enforcement.",
      "disagreement_ids": [
        "DG-FAA-NONSIGNATORY"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "CURRENT-US-SCOTUS-BADGEROW",
      "status": "CURRENT",
      "title": "Badgerow — FAA Chapter 1 confirmation/vacatur federal-forum holding",
      "source_keys": [
        "us_scotus_badgerow_2022"
      ],
      "predecessor_ids": [],
      "successor_ids": [],
      "note": "U.S. Supreme Court holding that Chapter 1 §§9–10 applications do not use Vaden look-through jurisdiction and require an independent federal jurisdictional basis.",
      "reviewed_on": "2026-08-09",
      "next_review_on": "2027-08-09",
      "when_review_due": "REVIEW_DUE",
      "authority_level": "US_SUPREME_COURT",
      "issue_scope": "Federal subject-matter jurisdiction for FAA Chapter 1 §§9–10 applications; not Chapter 2 Convention jurisdiction.",
      "disagreement_ids": [
        "DG-FAA-FEDERAL-FORUM"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "CHANGED-NY-SUNGHWAN-ARTICLE53",
      "status": "CHANGED",
      "title": "Sung Hwan — historical Article 53 recognition holding under predecessor statute",
      "source_keys": [
        "us_ny_sung_hwan_2006",
        "us_ny_cplr_article53"
      ],
      "predecessor_ids": [],
      "successor_ids": [
        "CURRENT-US-NY-CPLR53"
      ],
      "note": "The official Court of Appeals decision remains primary judicial history, but New York revised Article 53 in 2021; current statutory text controls current recognition proceedings.",
      "reviewed_on": "2026-08-09",
      "next_review_on": "2026-08-09",
      "when_review_due": "CHANGED",
      "authority_level": "NEW_YORK_COURT_OF_APPEALS",
      "issue_scope": "Pre-2021 foreign-country money-judgment recognition, personal jurisdiction, comity, and due process.",
      "disagreement_ids": [
        "DG-NY-ARTICLE53-HISTORY"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "review_policy_version": "1.0",
  "review_policy_note": "Scheduled review fields are publication-control metadata, not real-time legal monitoring. Status changes require reviewed authority before public claims are strengthened.",
  "disagreement_policy_version": "1.0",
  "disagreement_policy_note": "Conflicting or differently scoped authorities remain simultaneously visible. Authority level, currentness, and issue scope constrain interpretation; no website-side ranking algorithm makes a legal decision.",
  "disagreement_groups": [
    {
      "id": "DG-FAA-NONSIGNATORY",
      "status": "ISSUE_SCOPED_BY_CONTROLLING_DECISION",
      "title": "Convention text and domestic nonsignatory enforcement doctrine",
      "source_record_ids": [
        "CURRENT-US-FAA-NYC",
        "CURRENT-US-SCOTUS-GE-ENERGY"
      ],
      "authority_hierarchy": [
        "US_SUPREME_COURT",
        "FEDERAL_STATUTE_TREATY"
      ],
      "issue_scope": "Whether the Convention itself bars domestic equitable-estoppel doctrines for nonsignatory enforcement.",
      "resolution_state": "PARTIALLY_RESOLVED",
      "governed_resolution": "GE Energy controls the treaty-conflict question in U.S. law; actual equitable-estoppel entitlement and governing domestic law remained open on remand.",
      "truth_boundary": "Do not generalize this issue-scoped holding into a universal right to compel arbitration."
    },
    {
      "id": "DG-FAA-FEDERAL-FORUM",
      "status": "CONCURRENT_SCOPED_AUTHORITIES",
      "title": "FAA Chapter 1 forum jurisdiction versus Chapter 2 Convention jurisdiction",
      "source_record_ids": [
        "CURRENT-US-SCOTUS-BADGEROW",
        "CURRENT-US-FAA-NYC"
      ],
      "authority_hierarchy": [
        "US_SUPREME_COURT",
        "FEDERAL_STATUTE"
      ],
      "issue_scope": "Federal subject-matter jurisdiction for different FAA procedural vehicles.",
      "resolution_state": "ISSUE_SCOPE_REQUIRED",
      "governed_resolution": "Badgerow governs ordinary Chapter 1 §§9–10 look-through jurisdiction; Chapter 2 Convention matters have separate statutory jurisdiction provisions.",
      "truth_boundary": "Do not apply a Chapter 1 forum holding outside its issue scope or use Chapter 2 jurisdiction to classify a non-Convention instrument."
    },
    {
      "id": "DG-NY-ARTICLE53-HISTORY",
      "status": "CHANGED_STATUTORY_FRAMEWORK",
      "title": "Historical New York recognition case law and revised Article 53",
      "source_record_ids": [
        "CHANGED-NY-SUNGHWAN-ARTICLE53",
        "CURRENT-US-NY-CPLR53"
      ],
      "authority_hierarchy": [
        "CURRENT_STATE_STATUTE",
        "NEW_YORK_COURT_OF_APPEALS_HISTORICAL"
      ],
      "issue_scope": "Foreign-country money-judgment recognition after the 2021 statutory revision.",
      "resolution_state": "CURRENT_STATUTE_CONTROLS_CURRENT_PROCEEDINGS",
      "governed_resolution": "Sung Hwan remains historical judicial authority; current CPLR Article 53 supplies current statutory definitions, burdens, grounds, and procedure.",
      "truth_boundary": "Historical precedent must not silently override revised statutory text; later case law and issue-specific precedent may further control."
    }
  ]
}