Structure Models

Rights Review Trace

Rights-review standards can be labels for review handoff. Honesty note: simplified US federal structure model; jurisdictions and doctrine vary; the pinned first step states the as-of date; not legal advice.

highlighted = computed this step

Structure model honesty note

Honesty note: simplified US federal structure model; jurisdictions and doctrine vary; as of June 24, 2026; not legal advice; code encodes a process and label model, not the law itself.

structure model as of June24,2026\text{structure model as of }June 24, 2026

Use standard labels only

The stated classroom model uses right label, actor label, and review-standard label rows. It does not predict a rights result.

labels, no prediction\text{labels, no prediction}

Example review packet

The toy packet states right label and actor label. The standard label is unknown, so the trace keeps that row open.

standard unknown\text{standard unknown}

The trace keeps the open row

Rational basis, intermediate, and strict are possible standard labels here. The compiled trace has 3 rows and 1 unknown standard row.

rows=3,unknown=1\text{rows}=3,\quad \text{unknown}=1

Diagram note

The diagram is a prong trace. It does not rank standards by outcome or predict what a court would do.

standard labels only\text{standard labels only}

Jurisdiction: US; as of 2026-06-24; not legal advice; Code encodes a process and label model, not the law itself.

Simplified rights review label trace right_label: satisfied via right_label=True compare=True actor_label: satisfied via actor_label=True compare=True standard_label: unknown via standard_label=None compare=True

Summary

Rights-review data should preserve source, actor, standard label, unknowns, and human review without result language.

unknown then review\text{unknown then review}