Benjamin Schultz wrote: > R2149 was specified clearly >enough that the H. CotC was able to process the intended CFJ and >assign the case for a ruling.
You misremember: actually I rejected that message, having not perceived a specification of rule allegedly breached. In looking for that I skipped past the section labelled as "arguments". Arguments are by custom and (usually) intent quite distinct from the formal parameters of the CFJ. What I processed successfully was the revised attempt to call those CFJs, which did explicitly specify the rule along with the defendant and action. -zefram
