--- name: wa-fact-check description: > Use this skill to fact-check a Washington court filing (or a packet of filings) before it goes out the door. Triggers include "fact check this", "fact-check", "verify citations", "check my citations", "are my cites right", "consistency check", "audit this filing", "cite-check", "shepardize", "verify the law", "verify the facts", "double-check the draft", "check for hallucinations". Runs four passes: (1) **citation verification** — every Wn./Wn. App./P.2d/P.3d/U.S./S.Ct./F./F. App'x/RCW/CR/ CRLJ/ER/GR/U.S.C./C.F.R. cite resolves to a real source with the claimed holding or text; (2) **internal consistency** — dates, party names, cause number, dollar amounts, paragraph cross-refs all agree within the document; (3) **packet consistency** — caption, parties, cause number, and key facts agree across every document in the packet (motion, declaration, exhibits, order, note); (4) **sworn-vs.-argued consistency** — no fact recited in a motion contradicts a sworn statement in a declaration or affidavit. Uses the canonical URLs catalogued in `wa-law-references/references/online-sources.md` for citation verification. Composes with `wa-quality-check` (format pass), `wa-law-references` (citation conventions), and the draft-* skills (re-drafts flagged issues). **This is a verification skill, not a drafting skill** — it flags issues for the user and suggests fixes, but does not silently rewrite content. version: 0.2.1 --- # Fact-Check a Washington Court Filing The fastest way to lose credibility with a Washington judge is to cite a case that doesn't exist or misstates its holding, or to file a motion whose facts contradict the sworn declaration it relies on. This skill runs a four-pass check — **citation verification**, **internal consistency**, **packet consistency**, and **sworn-vs.-argued consistency** — and produces a human-reviewable report. > **NOT LEGAL ADVICE.** Fact-checking verifies the surface — it > doesn't tell the user whether the underlying legal position is > sound. Pair with substantive review by counsel where stakes > warrant. > **Never silently rewrite.** This skill flags issues; the user > (and, as needed, the drafting skills) fix them. Silent edits to > citations or facts are how hallucinations get filed. ## Inputs to gather Ask the user: 1. **Target scope** — a single file, or the whole packet? 2. **Path(s)** — absolute paths to each file (motion, declaration, exhibits, order, note, CoS) 3. **Intended filing date** — for determining whether recent statutory / rule amendments apply 4. **Jurisdiction** — superior / district (KCDC); some citation conventions differ 5. **Is this already in draft form** or freshly generated? — if freshly generated, run more aggressive hallucination checks ## Pass 1 — Citation verification For every citation in the document, verify that it exists and that the cited source supports the stated proposition. ### 1a. Identify every citation Parse the document for: - **Washington cases**: `\d+ Wn\.(2d|App\.) \d+` or `\d+ P\.(2d|3d) \d+` - **U.S. Supreme Court**: `\d+ U\.S\. \d+` or `\d+ S\. ?Ct\. \d+` - **Federal circuit / district**: `\d+ F\.(2d|3d|4th|Supp\.(2d|3d)) \d+` - **RCW**: `RCW \d+\.\d+(\.\d+)?` (sometimes with subsection parentheticals) - **Court rules**: `CR \d+(\([a-z]\))?`, `CRLJ \d+`, `ER \d+`, `GR \d+`, `RAP \d+\.\d+` - **Federal statutes**: `\d+ U\.S\.C\. § \d+` - **CFR**: `\d+ C\.F\.R\. (Part |§ ?)\d+(\.\d+)?` - **Local rules**: `KCLCR \d+`, `KCDCLCR \d+` Make a list; each entry becomes a verification item. ### 1b. Verify each citation For each citation: 1. **Fetch the canonical source** using the URL patterns in `wa-law-references/references/online-sources.md`: - RCW → `https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=X.XX.XXX` - CR / CRLJ / ER / GR → `https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/` with the appropriate rule path - CFR → `https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-XX/...` - U.S.C. → `https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/XX/XXXX` - Cases → CourtListener / Google Scholar For programmatic verification (preferred when fact-checking many cites), use the APIs in `wa-law-references/references/legal-data-apis.md`: - **CourtListener citation-lookup** — `POST https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v3/citation-lookup/` with `{"text": ""}` returns the case + opinion text. This is the cleanest path for batch cite-checking. - **eCFR Versioner API** — `https://www.ecfr.gov/api/versioner/v1/full//title-.xml?part=

` returns the in-force CFR text on a given date. - **USC USLM XML** — bulk download per release point from `uscode.house.gov` for offline cite verification at scale. 2. **Confirm the cite resolves** — the URL returns content that matches the cite 3. **Read the proposition the document attributes to the source** 4. **Verify the source supports the proposition** — not just that the case exists, but that its holding matches what the document claims 5. **Flag any mismatch** as one of: - **RED (existence)**: citation does not resolve to a real source — possible hallucination - **YELLOW (mismatch)**: source exists but does not support the stated proposition, or the proposition overstates the holding - **ORANGE (amendment)**: source exists and supports the proposition, but the statute/rule has been amended and the current version differs from what's quoted - **GREEN (ok)**: source exists, supports the proposition, and text is current ### 1c. Typical hallucination patterns to watch for - **Case name correct, cite numbers wrong** — a real case at a different volume/page - **Case name fabricated** — plausible-sounding case name that returns nothing on CourtListener - **Real case, real cite, wrong holding** — the case exists but does not stand for the proposition in the motion - **Circuit misattribution** — e.g., Ninth Circuit holding attributed to Sixth Circuit or vice versa - **Year off** — 2009 case cited as 2019 - **Pinpoint cite wrong** — volume and page correct, but the cited paragraph is on a different page ### 1d. Recent-amendment check For statutes and rules, note: - **Effective date** on the source page - Whether the document quotes the current text or an older version - If older, whether the relevant subsection was amended (check "history" link on leg.wa.gov for RCW; check "session" on courts.wa.gov for rules) Flag any citation where the text has changed since the cited version as **ORANGE**. ## Pass 2 — Internal consistency Within a single document, verify: ### 2a. Dates - **Date of event vs. dates in the narrative** — a "January 12, 2023" event referenced later as "January 21, 2023" is a contradiction - **Deadline math** — if the motion says "Plaintiff served discovery on March 1 and responded on April 5 (35 days later)", verify 35 is actually the day count - **Statute of limitations math** — if the filing claims the SOL bar date is X, verify it's actually X given the alleged default date - **Signing / declaration dates** in the future or too far in the past ### 2b. Party names - **Every reference to a party** uses the same name and styling (e.g., "Velocity Investments, LLC" consistently, not alternating with "Velocity Investments LLC" or "Velocity") - **Pronouns match** — if the document introduces "Plaintiff", it should continue to use "Plaintiff" (or the specific name) - **"Defendant" singular vs. plural** — consistent throughout ### 2c. Cause number - Same cause number every time it appears - Consistent format (`YYCIV######KCX` for KCDC) ### 2d. Dollar amounts - Principal + interest + fees = claimed total - Judgment amount consistent across paragraphs - Settlement / offer amounts consistent ### 2e. Paragraph cross-references - "As stated in paragraph 12 above" — paragraph 12 actually says that - Exhibit references — "Exhibit A" in the motion matches "Exhibit A" in the declaration's exhibit list - Footnote references in order and present ### 2f. Defined terms - Every defined term ("the Account", "the Agreement", "the Debt") is defined once and used consistently after ## Pass 3 — Packet consistency Across the documents in the packet (motion, memorandum, declaration, exhibits, proposed order, note, CoS): ### 3a. Caption Use `wa-statewide-format` caption conventions. Every document should have: - **Identical court name** (including division / department) - **Identical cause number** - **Identical party names and styling** - **Title appropriate for the document type** ### 3b. Cross-referenced facts - **The motion's fact recitation** matches **the declaration**'s factual content — the motion cannot "recite" facts that the declaration doesn't actually attest to - **Exhibits referenced in the motion** match **exhibits attached to the declaration** - **Proposed order findings** flow from the motion's arguments (the order cannot contain findings that the motion never asked for) ### 3c. Relief requested - **Motion's prayer for relief** matches **proposed order's ordered relief** — if the motion asks for three things, the order grants three things - **Note's indication of relief type** (e.g., "Motion for Dismissal") matches the motion title ### 3d. Service - **Certificate of Service** lists every party the motion is being served on - **Method of service** (mail, email, personal) matches what the service contacts allow ## Pass 4 — Sworn-vs.-argued consistency The motion contains **arguments**; the declaration contains **sworn facts**. Arguments must be grounded in sworn facts; sworn facts must not be contradicted by arguments elsewhere. ### 4a. Every factual assertion in the motion has a sworn source For each factual claim in the motion / memorandum: - Is it supported by the declaration (cited by paragraph)? - Is it supported by an exhibit (cited by exhibit letter and page)? - Is it supported by a judicial admission (an opposing party's pleading or answer)? - If none of the above, **flag as unsupported** — either add a sworn source or remove the factual assertion ### 4b. No contradictions between documents - The motion says "Defendant made no payments after June 2018" — the declaration says "Defendant made a final payment in August 2018" → contradiction - The motion says "Plaintiff served only one set of RFPs" — the exhibit list shows three sets attached → contradiction ### 4c. Declarations are within the declarant's knowledge - Declarant has personal knowledge of each assertion (CR 56(e) / CRLJ 56(e)) - No declarant testifies to events they could not have observed - Hearsay within declarations is either excepted or flagged ## Producing the report Output a structured fact-check report: ``` FACT-CHECK REPORT — [Case] [Date] Scope: [files reviewed] ============================================================= SUMMARY ============================================================= Citations checked: [N] GREEN (ok): [n] ORANGE (amendment): [n] YELLOW (mismatch): [n] RED (existence): [n] Internal consistency issues: [N] Packet consistency issues: [N] Sworn-vs.-argued issues: [N] OVERALL: [PASS / NEEDS ATTENTION / BLOCK] ============================================================= PASS 1 — CITATIONS ============================================================= [RED] Motion ¶ 14: "Smith v. Jones, 125 Wn.2d 400 (2010)" Could not resolve on CourtListener or courts.wa.gov. Possible hallucination — user should verify or remove. [YELLOW] Motion ¶ 22: "Hangman Ridge, 105 Wn.2d at 780, for the proposition that 'causation is presumed on a per se CPA claim'" Hangman Ridge at 780 addresses the public-interest element and the per se pathway generally but does not state that causation is presumed. See Hangman Ridge 105 Wn.2d at 784-85; Indoor Billboard, 162 Wn.2d at 83. Suggested fix: cite Indoor Billboard for the causation proposition. [ORANGE] Declaration ¶ 4: "RCW 4.84.080 provides for a statutory attorney fee of $125 in district court" Current RCW 4.84.080 (as of fetch date) shows $[amount] — verify the current amount and update. [GREEN] Motion ¶ 8: "15 U.S.C. § 1692e(2)(A)" — confirmed; text unchanged; proposition supported. ============================================================= PASS 2 — INTERNAL CONSISTENCY ============================================================= [Motion p. 3 ¶ 7 vs. Motion p. 6 ¶ 14] "account was opened in 2012" vs. "account originated in 2011" → Resolve the origination year. [Declaration Ex. B is referenced twice, with different subjects] → Check whether there are two Exhibit B's or a scanning error. ============================================================= PASS 3 — PACKET CONSISTENCY ============================================================= [Caption mismatch] Motion caption: "Velocity Investments, LLC" Declaration caption: "Velocity Investments LLC" (missing comma) Proposed order: "Velocity Investments, LLC" → Standardize. [Relief mismatch] Motion prays for: (1) dismissal, (2) fees, (3) sanctions Proposed order grants: (1) dismissal, (2) fees → Sanctions request dropped from the order — intentional? ============================================================= PASS 4 — SWORN-VS.-ARGUED ============================================================= [Unsupported assertion] Motion ¶ 9: "Plaintiff acquired the debt for less than 5% of face value." No declaration supports this. No exhibit supports this. If this is true and material, add a sworn source; if not supportable, remove the assertion. [Potential contradiction] Motion ¶ 11: "Plaintiff has provided no monthly statements." Declaration ¶ 7: "Plaintiff provided three monthly statements but no statements for 2019." → Soften the motion's assertion to match the declaration. ============================================================= RECOMMENDED FIXES (in priority order) ============================================================= 1. [BLOCKER] Resolve Motion ¶ 14 citation (possible hallucination) 2. [BLOCKER] Resolve Pass-4 contradiction about monthly statements 3. [IMPORTANT] Standardize caption party name across packet 4. [IMPORTANT] Verify RCW 4.84.080 current amount 5. [SUGGESTED] Re-cite proposition at Motion ¶ 22 to a case that supports it ``` ## Blockers vs. flags - **BLOCKER** — do not file: hallucinated citation, sworn-vs.- argued contradiction, caption mismatch on substantive party, cause number wrong - **IMPORTANT** — fix before filing if possible: amended statute text, internal inconsistency that could be read as dishonest, unsupported factual assertion - **SUGGESTED** — worth a second look but not disqualifying: stronger case available for a proposition; stylistic inconsistency ## Steps 1. **Load and parse** each document in the scope 2. **Extract citations** via pattern matching 3. **Fetch canonical sources** for each citation (prefer WebFetch; respect the web-content-restrictions — do **not** fall back to alternative fetch methods if WebFetch declines) 4. **Verify propositions** against fetched source 5. **Cross-document consistency** pass 6. **Sworn-vs.-argued** pass 7. **Produce report** with RED/YELLOW/ORANGE/GREEN flags 8. **Offer to re-draft** flagged items by handing off to the appropriate draft-* skill 9. **Do not silently edit** — every change to a citation or fact must be surfaced to the user ## Cross-references - For format (GR 14) compliance, use `wa-quality-check` - For citation format conventions, see `wa-law-references/references/citation-format.md` - For canonical URLs, see `wa-law-references/references/online-sources.md` - For re-drafting flagged sections, hand off to `wa-draft-motion`, `wa-draft-declaration`, or `wa-draft-order` ## Handling fetch failures If WebFetch fails for a canonical URL: 1. Do **not** try alternative fetch methods 2. Flag the citation as **UNVERIFIED (fetch failed)** — distinct from RED (hallucination) 3. Continue with remaining citations 4. Report unverified items separately so the user can verify manually ## Notes - **Fact-checking is not editing.** Changes are made by the user (or by a drafting skill invoked explicitly) — never by this skill silently - **Shepardize matters.** A case that was good law when written into a memo template may have been overruled; include "overruled?" checks when the case is older than 5 years - **Trust but verify even the plugin's own references.** This plugin's reference files (`wa-law-references/references/*.md`) summarize case holdings; those summaries can drift. Prefer canonical sources for verification - **Keep the report readable.** A 50-page fact-check report that the user won't read is worse than a 2-page report that prioritizes blockers - **Integrate with `wa-file-packet`** — `wa-file-packet` should offer to run `wa-fact-check` as part of preflight before any court filing