Phase 2: Check (Mechanical + AI Audit)

Two-stage checking: Python mechanical checks catch definite errors; Gemini batch audit catches judgment-call issues.

Stage 2a: Mechanical Checks (Python)

python3 "${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/../../../../skills/bluebook-audit/scripts/scan_formatting.py" --docx path/to/file.docx

Checks performed on ALL footnotes:

1. Journal name small caps - Comprehensive pattern list (law reviews, finance journals, newspapers, periodicals, forums)
2. Book title small caps - Detect italic book titles that should be small caps
3. Id. chain validation - Rule 4.1 mechanical check (single-source predecessor)
4. Signal italic consistency - All signals (see, cf., e.g.) must be italic
5. Terminal period - Every footnote must end with a period
6. Hereinafter consistency - Defined at first citation, used consistently after
7. Author name supra format - Text before *supra* should be roman, not italic (unless it's a case name short form). Catches *Manne, supra* → should be Manne, *supra*
8. Italic spillover - Trailing/leading spaces inside italic or small caps runs (e.g., *supra * should be *supra* ). These don't affect Word display but cause Gemini misparses

NBSP Handling

DOCX uses non-breaking spaces (\xa0) in abbreviations. ALL search functions must handle both \x20 and \xa0:

• No.\xa02106, Feb.\xa07, Oct.\xa021
• Wall St.\xa0J., Corp.\xa0Governance

Stage 2b: Gemini Batch Formatted Audit

Default: Use Gemini Batch API (50% cheaper, handles all footnotes in one job). Fallback to sync calls if batch is unavailable.

Step 1: Extract formatted footnotes

python3 "${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/../../../../skills/bluebook-audit/scripts/gemini_audit.py" --docx path/to/file.docx --extract-only

This outputs a JSON file mapping footnote numbers to formatted text with inline markup:

• *text* = italic
• [SC]text[/SC] = small caps
• Plain text = roman

Step 2: Submit Gemini Batch Job

Build a JSONL file with one request per footnote, then submit via Batch API:

# Build JSONL (one line per footnote)
for fn_num, formatted_text in footnotes.items():
    request = {
        "custom_id": f"fn-{fn_num}",
        "body": {
            "contents": [{"parts": [{"text": PROMPT.format(fn_num=fn_num, formatted_text=formatted_text)}]}],
            "generationConfig": {"responseMimeType": "application/json", "temperature": 0.1}
        }
    }

# Submit batch job (see /gemini-batch skill for full pattern)
# Use examples/batch_processor.py pattern — DO NOT guess API parameters

IMPORTANT: Follow the /gemini-batch skill's Iron Law — read examples/batch_processor.py before writing batch code.

Fallback (sync): If batch is unavailable, use:

python3 "${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/../../../../skills/bluebook-audit/scripts/gemini_audit.py" --docx path/to/file.docx

Gemini Prompt Focuses On:

• Source type classification (case, statute, article, book, newspaper, working paper, hearing, letter, regulation)
• Typeface correctness per Rule 2 (italic vs small caps vs roman)
• Abbreviation correctness per T6/T13
• Short form validity (cases must not use supra)

The Gemini audit MUST cover every footnote, not a subset. Auditing only "major" or "flagged" footnotes guarantees missed errors.

Previous failure: Auditing 45 of 239 footnotes missed 41 journal names needing small caps. </EXTREMELY-IMPORTANT>

Stage 2c: Claude Cross-Footnote Review

Never trust a single agent. After Gemini's per-footnote audit, Claude reviews the full set for cross-footnote patterns that per-footnote analysis misses.

Claude receives:

1. ALL formatted footnotes (fits in 1M context at ~20-40K tokens)
2. Gemini's per-footnote findings
3. Mechanical check results

Claude reviews for:

• Supra chain validity — does supra note 42 actually point to the right source?
• Hereinafter consistency — defined at first citation? Used consistently after?
• Repeated source type errors — if Gemini misclassified one SEC release, it likely missed them all
• Id. chain context — predecessor footnote analysis that per-footnote Gemini can't see
• Gemini false positive filtering — flag Gemini suggestions that are likely wrong (SEC releases, exec orders, working papers)

Output: Annotated version of Gemini findings with cross-footnote issues added and false positives flagged.

Red Flags - STOP If You Catch Yourself:

Merging Three-Layer Findings

Priority order: Mechanical > Claude cross-review > Gemini per-footnote

Mechanical checks are authoritative for deterministic rules:

• Signal italic formatting → trust mechanical checker (regex on run-level XML)
• Terminal periods → trust mechanical checker
• Id. chain validation → trust mechanical checker
• Journal/book small caps patterns → trust mechanical checker

Claude cross-review is authoritative for:

• Cross-footnote consistency (supra chains, hereinafter definitions)
• Gemini false positive filtering (source type misclassifications)
• Patterns across footnotes that per-footnote analysis misses

Gemini per-footnote is authoritative for:

• Individual source type classification (when not overridden by Claude)
• Abbreviation correctness (T6/T13 tables)
• Short form validity

Never drop a mechanical finding because Gemini or Claude didn't flag it. The mechanical checker catches 100% of signal issues by design.

Gate: Exit Check

Before proceeding to Report phase:

• scratch/audit_findings.json exists
• Mechanical check results cover ALL footnotes
• Gemini audit results cover ALL footnotes (verify count matches extract)
• Claude cross-footnote review complete
• Findings merged (mechanical > Claude > Gemini priority)

Next Phase

Read ${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/../../../../skills/bluebook-audit/skills/audit-report/SKILL.md and follow its instructions.