Why the misses are here
A verification page that lists only successes is marketing. The rule this site works to is that a currency pass owes a checked answer to a specific question and a written record of which question it checked — so an unchecked question is part of the record too. Seven corrections and four open items are published below, in the same weight as the closed ones.
What stands behind each characterization
Counted from the registry at build, so it cannot drift from what the Table of Authorities actually says. The four sources are not equivalent and are never collapsed into one badge.
15Verified against the opinionRead against the primary source and recorded in the verification ledger.
18Published characterizationQuoted from an analysis or guide this site already publishes.
1Drafted from the opinionDrafted in the pass that built this page. Not owner-reviewed.
34Citation confirmed onlyCourt, date, docket and posture confirmed. No holding is asserted.
80Text vendored from leginfoOperative text fetched and diffed at build; read it at the source link.
Questions asked, and what came back
A sweep is not a reading list. Each one states the question it set out to close, the method, and whether the answer actually closed it. One of the four below did not, and says so.
Sunset sweep — every statute the site cites
ClosedAugust 1, 2026
QuestionThe § 226.7 finding was luck: a statute happened to be read in full and happened to carry a repeal clause. Since the site cites 84 distinct section numbers, what else expires?
MethodEvery § NNN(.N) extracted from the data layer, components and app; each Labor Code section not already read fetched, plus the full text of the most-cited cluster; every amendment note scanned for the tells — “remain in effect only until”, “Repealed as of … by its own provisions”, “See later operative version”, “shall become operative”, “inoperative” — and leginfo’s own disambiguation page treated as a flag, since it is served precisely when two versions of a section are on the books.
Result§ 226.7 is the only one. No other statute the site cites carries a sunset, a deferred operative date, or a dual-version structure. Two apparent hits were artifacts of the inventory pattern rather than site defects, and are recorded so a later sweep does not re-chase them.
Recency sweep — is the site current with each statute’s latest amendment?
ClosedAugust 1, 2026
QuestionThe sunset sweep collected every cited statute’s amendment note. The same data answers a second question.
MethodFour statutes amended 2024 or later identified and each checked against the claim the site actually makes about it. Separately, § 2699 and § 2699.3 were both amended by AB 1170 at consecutive section numbers — the signature of an omnibus maintenance bill — so the current text’s subdivisions were enumerated and reconciled against every subdivision the site cites.
ResultNone left the site stale. The current § 2699 runs (a) through (v); the site cites fifteen of them and all exist. AB 1170 renumbered nothing the site relies on.
Currency sweep — the published opinions the site does not carry
ClosedAugust 1, 2026
QuestionOf the 24 published California appellate opinions citing § 2699 since the reform’s effective date, which does the site not carry, and does any absence matter?
MethodFourteen checked by name; eight covered, six absent. The question that mattered was narrow: an absent decision on some other issue is a curation choice, but an absent decision in the headless-PAGA line would make a published scoreboard wrong. All the absent opinions were therefore searched for that line.
ResultSix returned nothing. Only LaCour v. Marshalls engages the line, and expressly declines to join it — a separate writing says so directly and its footnote cites the split without taking a side. The scoreboard is not incomplete. Recorded as a verified negative so a later session does not re-derive it.
The eleven, triaged
Narrowed, not closedAugust 1, 2026
QuestionEleven decisions had been recorded as absent and their relevance left unassessed. Adding a case analysis is a publishing decision; checking whether one contradicts a published claim is not.
MethodThe pending posture of Camp v. Home Depot re-checked against the docket, then the three propositions on which a conflict would be a live defect: time-clock rounding, Ferra’s “regular rate of compensation”, and the post-Hohenshelt willfulness standard.
ResultNo conflict on any of the three. The posture holds. What the triage does not do is read eleven opinions, and it says so: the risk is narrowed and characterized, and the inventory remains the work list.
Corrections
What this site got wrong, and what changed. Kept because a correction that is not written down is a correction that gets reverted — which is why several of these are now guarded by the build rather than by memory.
Estrada cited for a holding it expressly reserves
Four surfaces described Estrada v. Royalty Carpet Mills as a due-process holding. The court wrote that it expressed “no opinion as to the hypothetical questions of whether, and under what circumstances, a defendant’s right to due process might ever support striking a PAGA claim.” The due-process limits on extrapolated proof are Duran’s. Corrected on every surface.
§ 226(j) read as a general exempt-employee carve-out
Element (2) of § 226(a) requires total hours “except as provided in subdivision (j)”, and (j) is a closed list: compensation solely based on salary plus an overtime exemption, or one of eight enumerated exemptions. A commissioned salesperson exempt from overtime under Wage Order 4 or 7, § 3(D), is on neither prong and must still be shown hours.
§ 226(a)(4)’s aggregation allowance, and what the element permits
The element expressly permits deductions made on written orders of the employee to be “aggregated and shown as one item”, and § 226(e)(2)(B)(ii) reinforces it. Sending a compliant employer to remediate a safe harbor is not compliance work, and two surfaces here had done exactly that before the primary-source pass corrected them.
The flagship estimator ran the § 2699(f)(2) default over § 558 claims
§ 2699(f) establishes its default “for all provisions of this code except those for which a civil penalty is specifically provided.” § 558 specifically provides one for overtime and meal periods, at $50 then $100 rather than $100 flat. A demand running the default on an overtime claim has skipped the first step of the audit — and so had the tool.
§ 2699(I) shipped on four guides
Statutory subdivisions are case-significant: § 2699(i) and § 2699(I) sit at different levels of the drafting hierarchy. A label styled in uppercase rewrote every subdivision letter inside it. The shared citation helper now protects the citation runs and keeps the uppercase design, and the build fails on a forked copy of it.
Three registry entries linked to determinations that did not exist
Anchors written by hand for headings carrying a section number: “CCP §§ 1281.97 and 1281.98” anchors at ccp-128197-and-128198, because the decimal point is stripped rather than turned into a hyphen. Three of the first ten were dead. Found by computing them rather than by reading them, and now computed on every build.
§ 226.7 marked as vendored when it is the one section that is not
The registry claimed a fetch-and-diff that never ran, and the citation chip repeated the claim back to the reader as “text vendored from leginfo”. leginfo serves the section as more than one operative version and answers with a redirect; the fetch script records that rather than guessing which version to show, and the entry now says so.
Open
Stated rather than implied. Two of these are unsettled questions of law that no published decision answers; two are work this site has not finished.
Eleven published decisions inventoried and unread
Triaged against the three propositions where a conflict would be a live defect, and clean on all three. They have not been read. A decision could still bear on this site in a way those queries would not surface.
Drafted holdings awaiting owner review
Registry entries marked “drafted from the opinion” were written in the pass that built the Table of Authorities and have not been reviewed by the attorney whose name is on this site. They are labeled as such wherever they render, and they are never presented as ledger-verified.
§ 2699(i)’s wage-statement branch is unconstrued
The provision withholds the stacked penalty for a § 226 violation that is “not knowing or intentional or a failure to provide a wage statement.” The clause is disjunctive, so read as written a total failure to issue a statement escapes the bar with no scienter showing at all. No published decision construes it. This site states the better reading and flags the ambiguity rather than asserting a construction.
Whether § 558 reaches § 226.7 is contested
§ 558’s first clause reaches “a section of this chapter” and § 226.7 sits in another. Its second clause reaches any IWC order provision regulating hours and days of work, and whether that carries § 226.7 is genuinely disputed. No published decision settles it.
Determinations
Each entry in the Table of Authorities that carries a verified characterization points at one of these. The full determination — the opinion text read, the pincites, the reasoning — is kept in docs/verification-ledger.md in this site’s repository; the build fails if any of these anchors stops naming a real heading in it.
Decided-case verifications
July 31, 2026Each decision read against the opinion text: party names, official citation, court, date, and the proposition the site actually relies on. Thirteen registry entries take their holding from this record.
Case-status determinations
July 31, 2026Pending-case postures checked against the dockets rather than against secondary coverage, because a posture is the claim most likely to have quietly stopped being true.
The 2024 renumbering of § 2699
August 1, 2026Settlement approval moved from § 2699(l)(2) to § 2699(s)(2); distribution moved from § 2699(i), where it was 75/25, to § 2699(m), now 65/35; and § 2699(i) today is the anti-stacking provision, an unrelated subject. Moniz cites the old numbers throughout, so quoting its citations into a post-reform brief cites three provisions that no longer say what they are offered for.
Provisions stated without their qualifications
August 1, 2026A pass for the opposite of a wrong citation: a correct one stated without the exception written into it. Read against the operative text rather than against the site.
§ 226.7 exists in two versions
August 1, 2026The operative version sunsets January 1, 2027. It is also why leginfo will not serve the section as a single text, and why this site vendors 76 provisions rather than 77.
CCP §§ 1281.97 and 1281.98 diffed
August 1, 2026The two arbitration-fee provisions read side by side, and a separate writing checked against what it actually says rather than against how it had been paraphrased.
Iloff’s reporter citation closed
August 1, 2026No Cal.5th citation appears in the opinion. The reporter cite was closed from four later published opinions, three with pincites — never from a citation index.
Estrada, verified against the opinion
August 2, 2026Read against the opinion rather than against what the site already said about it. The site had Estrada on four surfaces as a due-process holding; the court expressly reserved that question.
Defects found and corrected
August 1, 2026The running record of what this site got wrong and what was changed. It is kept because a correction that is not written down is a correction that gets reverted.
The eleven, triaged
August 1, 2026Eleven published decisions inventoried but not read, tested against the three propositions on which a conflict would be a live defect rather than an omission. The risk is narrowed and characterized rather than merely listed.