{
 "release": "amc-registry-federal-v1",
 "revision": 19,
 "generated": "2026-09-21",
 "revision_note": "A correction to revision 16, and the respondent's own account in Twigg. AMC-FED-0144: ai_tool is RESTORED to 'Implied', the source compilation's value, after revision 16 overwrote it with 'Unidentified'. Two things were wrong. The field carries the compilation's vocabulary and is not the register's to author \u2014 the register classifies those values, it does not write them \u2014 so the edit made this register diverge from its source with no correction logged. And the reasoning was backwards: 'Implied' means a machine was inferred and no system was named, which is exactly a matter where no court mentioned AI at all. NOTHING CAUGHT IT because both values are non-attributions inside the same 283 unattributed total, so the edit was invisible to every guard and every published figure \u2014 a field can be wrong in a way no total can see. Logged as C-2026-013. The finding that prompted it stands and now sits in the adjudication, where it belonged. AMC-FED-0287: the respondent's letter brief at ECF 236 is recorded as a PARTY FILING, not a court finding. He admits relying on 'an AI software platform offered through my firm's business host' and names no vendor, so ai_tool stays 'Unidentified'. His account of the mechanism is recorded because it describes the invented-quotation subtype from the inside: keyword rather than issue matching, and two distinct sentences from different parts of an opinion spliced into one continuous quotation. He was sanctioned notwithstanding it. No figure moves: 321 of 366 = 87.7%, penalty counts unchanged, attribution unchanged.",
 "population": 366,
 "confirmed_to_issuing_docket": 321,
 "confirmed_rate_percent": 87.7,
 "confirmed_including_seam": 322,
 "rate_including_seam": 88.0,
 "rows_with_no_docket_number": 43,
 "rows_with_no_docket_number_that_are_confirmed": 0,
 "penalty_counts": {
  "amount_recorded": 103,
  "none_imposed": 7,
  "not_recorded": 256,
  "no_dollar_amount_total": 263
 },
 "source_field_rule": "ai_tool, party, court, case and decision_date carry the source compilation's values. The register classifies and adjudicates them; it does not overwrite them. A finding about a row goes in the adjudication beside the source value, never on top of it. Added at revision 19 after revision 16 broke it.",
 "show_cause_rows_open": []
}