Here’s the thing about this one: we still found a pin-cite error. Even on a brief this well-researched, the system caught a citation pointing to a page that doesn’t exist in the opinion. That’s still a catch, and we’re showing it.
But first, what this actually is. This is a random brief. We didn’t go digging for a disaster to put on display. We pulled a public amicus brief — amicus briefs are public, which is why we use them — and ran it through CiteCheck the same way we’d run anything. What’s below is the actual report, unedited.
How it works. CiteCheck checks three things on every citation: does the case actually exist, is the quoted language real and on the page the brief cites, and does the case actually support the point it’s cited for. Nothing about tone. Nothing about whether we like the argument. Just: is the citation telling the truth.
No showmanship. We’re not out here hunting for the brief with forty hallucinations so we can post a bloodbath and look important. We post what we find — and most of the time, on a serious brief, what we find is that the lawyer did their job. That’s the whole point of CiteCheck. If it’s clean, we say it’s clean. This week, it was almost clean.
A first this week. This brief cites a Puerto Rico Supreme Court opinion written in Spanish. We’d never run a non-English opinion before — our first edge case. The system verified it to the exact page, no hiccups, same as the English ones. Two languages in one brief, every cite checked to the source.