On Thu, Feb 16, 2023 at 10:25 PM Janet Cobb via agora-business <agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > The only potentially relevant precedent that I was able to find was CFJ > 3551, on whether a revision could be a duty-fulfilling report. In eir > arguments, the caller states in eir arguments that "[a] revision is also > a report", and H. Judge o held the same. Although the document in > question was hypothetical and the issue focused on in the judgement was > whether there was a duty, rather than whether the document was a report, > this does at least weakly suggest an understanding that a revision was a > whole report.
Maybe a bit of a refinement from precedent: CFJ 3658[0] found that it's (in many cases) IMPOSSIBLE to CoE a "whole report", rather the scope of the CoE is generally the "whole section" where the error is contained (e.g. the whole section of the report purporting to be a list of switches, etc.). I don't think this changes your main point (that a partial section with a diff doesn't work) but it may be worth some wording adjustment that the minimal revision is "whole revised section of report". Though culturally, we tend to prefer "whole reports" for revisions (easier to look up game status), this difference comes into play when (for example) the Herald has both Karma and Score as separate formatted messages, but both are part of eir weekly report - I don't think anyone CoEing the "karma report" expected the Herald to republish the "score report" as well. [0] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3658 -G.
