ylj-footnotes-and-cite-check

Footnotes & Cite-Check (ylj-footnotes-and-cite-check)

The heavy-footnote apparatus is what distinguishes legal scholarship, and YLJ's source-pull verifies

every footnote by hand. This skill runs the same audit you should run before submission and again

during editing, so the piece survives source-pull cleanly. It verifies an existing apparatus; building

cites is ylj-sources-and-bluebook, and the editorial cycle that triggers source-pull is

ylj-revision-and-editing.

When to trigger

• Final pass before submission — the apparatus must be source-pull-ready
• Answering source-pull author queries during the editing cycle
• A reader or editor flagged a cite that may not support its sentence
• Reconciling short forms (id., supra) and cross-references after heavy revision

The four-point cite test (every footnote)

1. Existence. The source is real and retrievable (case in the reporter, statute in the code,

article in the journal). Dead or invented cites are the gravest source-pull failure.

1. Support. The cited page/section actually says what the sentence claims. The cite-doesn't-support

failure is the most common — read the pinpoint, not just the source's headnote.

1. Pinpoint. The cite points to the exact page/section/paragraph relied on, not the source's first

page.

1. Form. Bluebook form is correct for the source type, with the right signal and consistent short

forms.

Apparatus-wide consistency sweep

| Check | Failure it catches |

|-------|--------------------|

| Short-form chain | An id. pointing at the wrong antecedent after a paragraph was moved |

| supra notes | A supra note 14 whose note 14 was renumbered or deleted |

| First-full-cite rule | A short form used before the source's first full citation |

| Cross-references | "See Part III.B" when restructuring renamed the Part |

| Quotation fidelity | Quoted text that no longer matches the source verbatim; missing [ ]/. . . |

| Signal accuracy | See where the source states it directly (or E.g. with one example) |

Risk-ordered audit pass

Do not audit footnotes only from note 1 to the end. First isolate the citations that would damage the

piece if they fail:

1. Load-bearing law: holdings, statutory text, constitutional provisions, agency rules.
2. Novelty claims: cites used to prove what prior scholarship has or has not said.
3. Empirical / historical claims: any number, date, institutional practice, or archive fact.
4. Quotations: all block quotes and all quotations used as proof of meaning.
5. String cites: sources in a chain where one weak cite can make the whole proposition look padded.

For each high-risk note, write a one-line support note: "source says X at pin Y; manuscript sentence

claims Z; support is direct / inferential / weak." Anything weak becomes a revision task, not a

source-pull answer to defer.

Quotation and integrity audit

• Re-collate every direct quotation against the source character-for-character; mark alterations per

Bluebook ([ ], . . ., (emphasis added), (citation omitted)).

• Flag any paraphrase that tracks the source's wording without quotation marks — fix it before an editor

raises it as an integrity issue.

Pre-empt the source-pull

Build a query-resistant apparatus: for the hardest cites, drop an explanatory parenthetical that shows

where in the source the support lives. This converts a likely author query into a verified footnote.

Checklist

• [ ] Every cite passes existence + support + pinpoint + form
• [ ] Hardest/most-load-bearing cites personally re-checked against the source
• [ ] Short-form chain (id./supra) consistent after all revisions
• [ ] First-full-cite precedes every short form
• [ ] Cross-references match the final Part/section structure
• [ ] Quotations collated verbatim; alterations Bluebook-marked
• [ ] No unmarked paraphrase tracking a source's wording

Anti-patterns

• A cite to a source whose pinpoint doesn't actually say what the sentence claims
• id. / supra chains broken by reordering, left for the source-puller to untangle
• A quotation that drifted from the source during editing (verbatim no longer matches)
• Relying on a headnote or syllabus instead of the opinion's actual holding page
• Treating the apparatus as the editors' job — they verify it; they don't build it

Output format

【Cites audited】N footnotes; existence + support + pinpoint + form all pass? Y/N
【High-risk notes】load-bearing citations support-logged? Y/N
【Hard cites】load-bearing cites re-checked against source? Y/N
【Short forms】id./supra chain + cross-refs consistent? Y/N
【Quotations】collated verbatim + alterations marked? Y/N
【Source-pull-ready】Y/N
【Next】ylj-workflow to route the next piece, or ylj-revision-and-editing if mid-edit

Supplementary resources

• [../../resources/external_tools.md](../../resources/external_tools.md) — Bluebook, KeyCite/Shepard's, and cite-checking tools
• [../../resources/official-source-map.md](../../resources/official-source-map.md) — YLJ source-pull / citation-requirement facts