Diagnose a rejected court filing

Proposed inputs

1. Name

   Invented failed submission

   Owner

   Legal operations owner

   Minimum scope

   One fictional form, rejection message and version label

   Quality check

   Keep the rejected version; distinguish a stated reason from a reviewer hypothesis.

2. Name

   Owner-approved rule excerpt

   Owner

   Qualified reviewer

   Minimum scope

   One dated excerpt selected for the exercise

   Quality check

   Confirm its jurisdiction and applicability; do not let the exercise infer either.

Access and setup — proposed or unknown

Proposed minimum

1. Agree a narrow exercise and the owner who can resolve ambiguous facts.

2. Use locally supplied fictional records before requesting any live connection.

Compatibility unknowns

1. Unknown: actual platform access, integration behavior, configuration, costs and Canadian availability.

External actions requiring approval

1. Require separate access, write and communication approvals; retain qualified review.

Why use this

1. Make the next correction reviewable.

2. Keep earlier versions traceable.

Why an agent / simpler alternative

Useful judgment

Compare ambiguous messages with supplied evidence.

Simpler alternative

Use a validated error-code checklist for a stable, fully coded rejection.

Unsuitable when

The only available explanation is a guessed deadline or a missing rule; qualified counsel must resolve it.

Expected deliverable and review checks

Proposed artifact

A rule-linked rejection diagnosis in Slack.

Critical checks

1. Link each cause to evidence.

2. Unexplained errors stay open.

3. No automatic resubmission.

Missing output evidence

No individual output or completed run independently inspected.

First check — proposed, unexecuted

Status

proposed_unexecuted

Synthetic fixture

A fictional submission contains a mismatched reference number. Its rejection message also mentions a missing attachment; the supplied packet intentionally omits that attachment.

Acceptance checks

1. Identify the number mismatch from the supplied pages.

2. Keep the attachment question unresolved.

3. Offline mock only; no court access.

Stop conditions

1. Stop if a real account, confidential input, legal decision or consequential action becomes necessary.

Failure signals and proposed responses

1. Signal

   Several rejection reasons look similar

   Why it matters

   The wrong explanation may produce the same rejection again.

   Proposed response

   List plausible causes and the missing evidence; ask the owner to choose the next check.

2. Signal

   A screenshot omits the error code

   Why it matters

   A confident narrative may hide missing facts.

   Proposed response

   Request the full approved error message before completing the diagnosis.

3. Signal

   An old form conflicts with a newer instruction

   Why it matters

   The correct revision may not be identifiable from the packet.

   Proposed response

   Flag the version conflict for qualified review rather than silently selecting one.

Effort and cost — unknown

Setup work

1. Assign an accountable reviewer, choose representative counterexamples and record what would count as a failure.

Ongoing review

1. Sample uncertain results and changes in the input format. Keep reviewer corrections so the same error can be checked again.

Unknowns

1. Unknown: licensing, configuration, usage charges, elapsed effort and reliability. No savings established.

Limits

1. The intended output describes what an authorized implementation would produce; the first exercise is offline and does not establish live compatibility or success.