Jurisdictional content audit
This is the format of a StatuteData audit, reproduced from a real engagement with the client and identifying details removed. Figures are illustrative of a typical result; the structure is exact.
Scope and method
Every published state page in the subject's contractor licence bond series was retrieved and parsed into discrete claims. Each claim was resolved against primary sources under the source hierarchy.
State-level requirements only. Municipal and county positions are reported as unverified rather than assessed. In devolved states this is the majority of the local picture, and no vendor — including us — has verified holdings at that level.
Summary
Fourteen claims across eleven state pages are contradicted by the primary source currently in force. Nine further pages carry claims that were accurate when written and have since been superseded.
One page pair gives materially opposite answers to the same question and cross-links to itself, so a reader following the subject's own internal navigation arrives at both answers in sequence.
Severity model
Findings are ranked by consequence to the reader, not by how wrong they are.
| Severity | Definition | Count |
|---|---|---|
| S1 | Reader acting on the claim would fail to meet a legal requirement, or would be told an activity is permitted where the statute prohibits it | 4 |
| S2 | Claim contradicts current primary source but the practical consequence is corrigible — wrong amount, wrong authority, superseded threshold | 10 |
| S3 | Internally inconsistent across the subject's own pages; no single claim is provably wrong but the pair cannot both be right | 2 |
| S4 | Accurate but undated, uncited, or last revised more than 24 months ago | 9 |
Selected findings
Three of fourteen shown. The full schedule accompanies the audit, one record per contradicted claim, each with source text and retrieval date.
No person shall use any silencer on any firearm when hunting. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 26-75 — section reproduced in full
Where the errors are
Errors are not distributed evenly, and they are not concentrated where traffic is highest.
| Jurisdiction class | Pages | Contradicted | Rate |
|---|---|---|---|
| Single authority, bright-line rule | 18 | 0 | 0% |
| Single authority, tiered or classified | 17 | 3 | 18% |
| Split across agencies | 9 | 5 | 56% |
| Devolved to municipalities | 6 | 6 | 100% |
High-volume states with a single clear rule are maintained correctly across the whole vertical. Every error we find sits in a jurisdiction that is structurally awkward to describe. This is not carelessness — it is the predictable failure mode of maintaining several hundred pages against fifty regulatory regimes without a verification layer.
What you receive
- Full finding schedule. One record per contradicted or stale claim, with published text, governing source, quoted authority, retrieval date and severity.
- Corrected copy for every S1 and S2 finding, written to be dropped in, each sentence traceable to its citation.
- Structured export of every claim parsed, including the verified ones, as CSV or JSON.
- Scope statement naming precisely what was not assessed, so the gaps are yours to see rather than yours to discover.
Turnaround is ten working days for a fifty-page series. Audits are fixed price and delivered whole; there is no finding held back.