Corrections Log

Accuracy is the product here, so we hold ourselves to the standard we claim: when our verification cycle — or a reader — finds a factual defect on any page, it is logged below permanently: what was wrong, where, how serious it was, and its fix status. A site that claims verified data should show its errors, not hide them. This log is the evidence that the checking actually happens.

Most entries were found by our own adversarial audits, in which every material fact on a page is re-checked against the live official source. The log includes defects in unpublished drafts caught before going live as well as defects found on live pages — both count.

Severity: high — a reader relying on the page could act incorrectly (wrong fee, wrong mandate, missing exemption); medium — materially incomplete, misattributed, or self-contradictory; low — presentation or metadata.

Found something wrong? Tell us . Confirmed reports are fixed and logged here.

494 corrections logged from July 6, 2026 to September 29, 2026 (1101 page instances) — 106 high · 231 medium · 157 low severity — 492 fixed.

September 2026

• 2026-09-29 — ny-hvac — requirements / quick answer / cost (high)
  The New York page gave New York City's Home Improvement Contractor license fee as $25 to $125 depending on when in the two-year cycle you file. New York City doubled it: Local Law 2025/183 amended Administrative Code sec. 20-388 to a biennial fee of $200, effective September 8, 2026, and the city's own license checklist now lists $200, $150, $100, and $50 or $250. The page now gives the new amounts and names the law that changed them.
• 2026-09-29 — ct-notary — ron detail / license types / faq / source urls (medium)
  Connecticut's Secretary of the State reissued the Notary Public Manual as Rev. 2026-1 at the same web address. Its remote-notarization chapter was rewritten, so the Connecticut page quoted four sentences that are no longer in the manual and said electronic signing was an open question. The new manual answers it: the office 'does not currently accept a document that is executed (signed) electronically', and remote notarizations are done on paper with a wet-ink signature. The page now quotes the current edition; every other quoted passage was checked and is unchanged.
• 2026-09-29 — ct-notary — also known as (low)
  The Connecticut page said the terms 'notary signing agent' and 'loan signing agent' appear nowhere in the Secretary of the State's Notary Public Manual. The manual's own FAQ answers a question about them: 'Connecticut does not license Notary Signing Agents.' This was already wrong in the 2023 edition and was found while re-reading the 2026 one. The page now quotes the manual's answer.
• 2026-09-29 — ma-electrician — license_types.fee / fees / requirements / exam / quick answer / faq (high)
  The Massachusetts page told applicants to apply to PSI and pay $226 (journeyman, systems technician) or $276 (master, systems contractor) to PSI by money order, and to renew in e-PLACE. The Board now takes applications, renewals and reinstatements in the state's eLIPSE portal: $31 application plus $104 license fee for journeyman and systems technician, $66 plus $155 for master and systems contractor, with the $135 exam fee paid to PSI when scheduling. The page now says so; the old veteran-waiver amounts were removed because the Board's page no longer states any.
• 2026-09-29 — fl-cna — ce hours (low)
  The Florida CNA page said the Board of Nursing repeats the required in-service training subjects word for word. The Board's CNA licensing page removed its in-service training section in September 2026. The 24-hour requirement and the subject list are unchanged in Fla. Stat. 464.203(7) and rule 64B9-15.011, which the page cites; the page now says the Board's page carried the list until September 2026.
• 2026-09-29 — ny-hvac — requirements / where to check / faq / quick answer (medium)
  The New York page said New York City's Home Improvement Exam costs a separate, nonrefundable $50. The city's license checklist now says the license application fee includes the cost of taking the exam up to two times, and $50 is charged only to retake it after two failures (covering two more attempts). The page now says so. The checklist changed on September 17, 2026; our monitor recorded the change but it was not read until today.
• 2026-09-24 — co-cna — reinstatement FAQ; lapse rule (medium)
  The Colorado CNA page said that once a certificate has been expired for more than two years 'there is no reinstatement path', and then quoted the rule that provides one: 'To reinstate a certificate that has been expired for more than two years, the applicant must re-take and pass the Competency evaluation' (3 CCR 716-1, Rule 1.10(F)(4)). A reader could conclude the certificate was gone for good. The page now says that past two years the only way back is to re-take and pass the exam.
• 2026-09-24 — dc-cna — requirements (the four-month deadline) (low)
  The District of Columbia CNA page said the District's deadline to become certified 'is shorter than the federal four-month window it mirrors', then quoted the District rule, which sets the same four months (17 DCMR 9601.1 and 9601.2). The page now says the District's deadline matches the federal window.
• 2026-09-24 — dc-cna — renewal (medium)
  The District of Columbia CNA page told anyone with a renewal pending to read the Board's notice and check their record because 'the September 1, 2026 cutoff is stated without qualification' - written as upcoming guidance, and still shown after that date had passed. The Board's notice is still on its page (read September 24, 2026). The page now says the cutoff has passed and that the notice does not say how a renewal still pending after that date is treated.
• 2026-09-24 — dc-cna — exam vendor (low)
  The District of Columbia CNA page said no page of the testing contractor, Credentia, was relied on for any legal requirement, while its own source list relied on Credentia's District page for the continued-enrolment work rule (one documented eight-hour paid day in 24 months). The page now says that one condition comes from the vendor's page and is attributed to it.
• 2026-09-24 — hi-cna — FAQ (who must be certified) (medium)
  A Hawaii CNA FAQ described the second certification track as covering settings 'regulated by the health or human services departments'. That is the pre-2016 wording: Act 21 of 2016 deleted 'or the department of human services' from HRS 457A-1.5, and the same page says so three times elsewhere. The FAQ now says settings regulated by the department of health, and notes the 2016 change.
• 2026-09-24 — ca-cna — exam (language) (low)
  The California CNA page headed a statutory deadline 'A CHANGE IS IN MOTION' nine months after it passed: H&S Code 1337.3(a)(2) required CDPH to solicit vendors for a Spanish-language exam no later than December 31, 2025. The page now says the date has passed, that CDPH's CNA Testing Vendors page (read September 24, 2026) does not mention a Spanish-language exam, and that the page does not say whether a vendor has been solicited or engaged.
• 2026-09-24 — id-cna, ca-cna, nd-cna, ar-cna, hi-cna, co-cna, ok-cna — cross-state comparisons (medium)
  Several CNA pages ranked their state against the others, and some of those rankings were false against our own 51 state pages. Idaho said its 120 training hours were 'the most of any state' (California requires 160 and Missouri 175); California said its 160 hours were the highest requirement of any state (Missouri: 175); Idaho said it was the only state whose registry lookup offers a Social Security number search (at least 16 other states' lookups do); North Dakota said it was the only state where the CNA listing is free (Arizona, California and Georgia charge no state fee either); Arkansas said its eight-hour work test was the lowest (New Jersey's is seven hours). Hawaii's 'highest exam fees so far', Colorado's 'harshest' and 'strictest' three-failure rule, and the claim on both the Colorado and the Oklahoma page to the 'strongest' legal protection were never checked across all states and could not both be true. The false rankings were removed and the unchecked ones dropped; every underlying figure is unchanged.
• 2026-09-24 — de-cna — training hours (nursing-student route) (medium)
  The Delaware CNA page gave one figure for the nursing-student route - 'no less than 75 hours of clinical instruction in a long term care setting', from Prometric's Delaware candidate bulletin - while the Department's own Application for Deemed Certification, also cited on the page, says 'a minimum of 16 hours of clinical rotation'. The page never said the two disagree. It now states both, attributed, and says neither document says which controls (both re-read September 24, 2026).
• 2026-09-24 — ia-cna — sources (where testing happens) (low)
  The Iowa CNA page quoted DIAL's placement page - 'Testing is only provided at one of the community colleges. Other organizations that offer the training do not provide testing.' - without noting that DIAL's own CNA and training pages offer the written test online through Headmaster or Credentia and the skills test through Health Tech Associates, a private entity. All three pages still say what they said (read September 24, 2026). The page now names the conflict and says which pages it follows.
• 2026-09-24 — ca-cna — renewal (low)
  The California CNA page said California renews on three conditions and, a few lines later, quoted CDPH's sentence 'One (1) of the two (2) renewal requirements is ...' without comment. The page now notes that CDPH counts two in that sentence while its renewal list names three, and that the page follows the list.
• 2026-09-24 — hi-cna — renewal (low)
  The Hawaii CNA page quoted the rule (the recertification application must be received one month before the certification expires) and the contractor's form (do not submit it more than 30 days before expiry) without saying that, read together, they leave almost no window. The page now says so, and that neither source reconciles the two.
• 2026-09-24 — ak-notary, az-cna, ct-cna, dc-cna, ga-cna, hi-cna, ia-cna, id-cna, il-cna, il-notary, in-cna, ks-cna, ky-cna, la-cna, ma-cna, ma-hvac, ma-notary, md-cna, me-cna, mi-cna, mn-cna, mo-cna, ms-cna, mt-cna, nc-cna, nc-notary, nd-cna, nd-hvac, nd-notary, ne-cna, nh-cna, nj-cna, nm-cna, nm-notary, nv-cna, ny-notary, oh-cna, ok-cna, or-cna, pa-cna, pa-notary, ri-cna, sc-cna, sd-cna, tn-cna, tn-notary, ut-cna, va-cna, vt-cna, wa-cna, wa-notary, wi-cna, wv-cna, wy-cna — opening sentence; how to apply; verify a license (low)
  Sentence templates pasted whole-paragraph agency names into the middle of sentences. On 39 pages the How to apply line read '... Phoenix, AZ 85007.. Start at the official application page'; on the CNA pages the opening line read '... No board of nursing is involved. administers certified nursing assistant licensing in Georgia'; on 13 pages the license-lookup note read '... Registry''s own system' or '... website'.'s own system'; and three CNA descriptions said 'a 85-hour'. The templates now use only the agency name's opening phrase, drop the agency when its description does not start with a name, never form a possessive on it, and choose 'an' before 8, 11 and 18. The wording of the individual agency descriptions is unchanged and still shown in full in each page's at-a-glance box.
• 2026-09-24 — ak-cna, al-cna, ar-cna, az-cna, ca-cna, co-cna, ct-cna, dc-cna, de-cna, fl-cna, ga-cna, hi-cna, ia-cna, id-cna, il-cna, in-cna, ks-cna, ky-cna, la-cna, ma-cna, md-cna, me-cna, mi-cna, mn-cna, mo-cna, ms-cna, mt-cna, nc-cna, nd-cna, ne-cna, nh-cna, nj-cna, nm-cna, nv-cna, ny-cna, oh-cna, ok-cna, or-cna, pa-cna, ri-cna, sc-cna, sd-cna, tn-cna, tx-cna, ut-cna, va-cna, vt-cna, wa-cna, wi-cna, wv-cna, wy-cna — opening sentence (medium)
  Every CNA page opened '<agency> administers certified nursing assistant licensing in <state>. Every figure below is verified against the board's own official pages' - on pages whose own text says 'A nurse aide is certified in Iowa, not licensed', 'No board of nursing is involved' (Georgia) and 'Connecticut issues no nurse aide license', and where many figures come from statutes and testing contractors rather than a board. The opening line now names the state agency without saying what it does, and says the figures are verified against the official sources named on the page.
• 2026-09-24 — ak-cna, al-cna, ar-cna, az-cna, ca-cna, co-cna, ct-cna, dc-cna, de-cna, fl-cna, ga-cna, hi-cna, ia-cna, id-cna, il-cna, in-cna, ks-cna, ky-cna, la-cna, ma-cna, md-cna, me-cna, mi-cna, mn-cna, mo-cna, ms-cna, mt-cna, nc-cna, nd-cna, ne-cna, nh-cna, nj-cna, nm-cna, nv-cna, ny-cna, oh-cna, ok-cna, or-cna, pa-cna, ri-cna, sc-cna, sd-cna, tn-cna, tx-cna, ut-cna, va-cna, vt-cna, wa-cna, wi-cna, wv-cna, wy-cna — various (sources, verify a license, renewal, exemptions) (low)
  The CNA pages spoke in our own working vocabulary instead of the reader's: phrases that called the page a 'record', talked about 'tiers' of searching, a 'field list', 'this cluster' and 'this wave', what 'an automated watch' on a lookup address can see, and bare internal names for parts of the page (the verification portal and continuing-education sections, written in code form). About 420 passages on all 51 CNA pages were reworded into plain English with no factual change: every fee, hour count, date and citation is unchanged, and nothing inside a quotation was touched. Comparisons with other states that turned out to be false are logged separately.
• 2026-09-24 — ak-alcohol-server, ak-cna, ak-electrician, ak-food-handler, ak-hvac, ak-notary, al-alcohol-server, al-cna, al-electrician, al-food-handler, al-hvac, al-notary, ar-alcohol-server, ar-cna, ar-electrician, ar-food-handler, ar-hvac, ar-notary, az-alcohol-server, az-cna, az-contractor, az-electrician, az-food-handler, az-hvac, az-notary, ca-alcohol-server, ca-cna, ca-contractor, ca-food-handler, ca-hvac, ca-notary, ca-plumber, co-alcohol-server, co-cna, co-electrician, co-food-handler, co-hvac, co-notary, ct-alcohol-server, ct-cna, ct-electrician, ct-food-handler, ct-food-manager, ct-hvac, ct-notary, dc-alcohol-server, dc-cna, dc-electrician, dc-food-handler, dc-hvac, dc-notary, de-alcohol-server, de-cna, de-electrician, de-food-handler, de-hvac, de-notary, fl-alcohol-server, fl-cna, fl-contractor, fl-food-handler, fl-hvac, fl-notary, fl-plumber, ga-alcohol-server, ga-cna, ga-electrician, ga-food-handler, ga-hvac, ga-notary, ga-plumber, hi-cna, hi-electrician, hi-food-handler, hi-hvac, hi-notary, ia-alcohol-server, ia-cna, ia-electrician, ia-food-handler, ia-hvac, ia-notary, id-cna, id-electrician, id-food-handler, id-hvac, id-notary, il-alcohol-server, il-cna, il-electrician, il-food-handler, il-hvac, il-notary, il-plumber, in-alcohol-server, in-cna, in-electrician, in-food-handler, in-hvac, in-notary, ks-cna, ks-electrician, ks-food-handler, ks-food-manager, ks-hvac, ks-notary, ky-alcohol-server, ky-cna, ky-electrician, ky-food-handler, ky-notary, la-cna, la-contractor, la-electrician, la-food-handler, la-hvac, la-notary, ma-alcohol-server, ma-cna, ma-food-handler, ma-hvac, ma-notary, ma-plumber, md-alcohol-server, md-cna, md-food-handler, md-hvac, md-notary, me-alcohol-server, me-cna, me-electrician, me-food-handler, me-hvac, me-notary, mi-alcohol-server, mi-cna, mi-electrician, mi-food-handler, mi-hvac, mi-notary, mn-alcohol-server, mn-cna, mn-electrician, mn-food-handler, mn-hvac, mn-notary, mo-cna, mo-electrician, mo-hvac, mo-notary, ms-alcohol-server, ms-cna, ms-contractor, ms-electrician, ms-food-handler, ms-hvac, ms-notary, mt-alcohol-server, mt-cna, mt-electrician, mt-food-handler, mt-hvac, mt-notary, nc-alcohol-server, nc-cna, nc-electrician, nc-food-handler, nc-hvac, nc-notary, nc-plumber, nd-alcohol-server, nd-cna, nd-electrician, nd-food-handler, nd-hvac, nd-notary, ne-alcohol-server, ne-cna, ne-hvac, ne-notary, nh-alcohol-server, nh-cna, nh-food-handler, nh-hvac, nh-notary, nj-alcohol-server, nj-cna, nj-food-handler, nj-hvac, nj-notary, nm-alcohol-server, nm-cna, nm-electrician, nm-food-handler, nm-hvac, nm-notary, nv-alcohol-server, nv-cna, nv-contractor, nv-electrician, nv-food-handler, nv-hvac, nv-notary, ny-alcohol-server, ny-cna, ny-electrician, ny-food-handler, ny-hvac, ny-notary, ny-plumber, oh-alcohol-server, oh-cna, oh-contractor, oh-electrician, oh-food-handler, oh-notary, oh-plumber, ok-alcohol-server, ok-cna, ok-electrician, ok-hvac, ok-notary, or-cna, or-electrician, or-hvac, or-notary, pa-cna, pa-electrician, pa-food-handler, pa-hvac, pa-notary, pa-plumber, ri-alcohol-server, ri-cna, ri-electrician, ri-food-handler, ri-hvac, ri-notary, sc-alcohol-server, sc-cna, sc-electrician, sc-food-handler, sc-hvac, sc-notary, sd-cna, sd-electrician, sd-food-handler, sd-food-manager, sd-hvac, sd-notary, tn-alcohol-server, tn-cna, tn-electrician, tn-food-handler, tn-hvac, tn-notary, tx-alcohol-server, tx-cna, tx-electrician, tx-food-handler, tx-hvac, tx-notary, tx-plumber, ut-alcohol-server, ut-cna, ut-electrician, ut-food-handler, ut-hvac, ut-notary, va-alcohol-server, va-cna, va-contractor, va-electrician, va-food-handler, va-hvac, va-notary, vt-alcohol-server, vt-cna, vt-electrician, vt-food-handler, vt-hvac, vt-notary, wa-alcohol-server, wa-cna, wa-food-handler, wa-hvac, wa-notary, wi-alcohol-server, wi-cna, wi-electrician, wi-food-handler, wi-food-manager, wi-hvac, wi-notary, wv-alcohol-server, wv-cna, wv-electrician, wv-food-handler, wv-hvac, wv-notary, wy-alcohol-server, wy-cna, wy-electrician, wy-food-handler, wy-food-manager, wy-hvac, wy-notary — record prose (requirements, eligibility, training, exam, bond, fees, renewal, FAQ and others) (medium)
  Pages showed readers our researchers' working notes instead of plain reference text: instructions meant for fact-checkers (for example a Virginia notary page told readers not to write a 2027 rule in the present tense and what a checker should re-check), lists of which sources were searched and on what date, long passages in capital letters, source labels written in shorthand, and internal names for parts of the page. About 3,300 capitalised passages, 340 search-process notes and 30 checker instructions across roughly 260 pages. Rewritten as plain reader prose; an automatic check confirmed that every number, fee, date, legal citation and quotation on each page was kept unchanged.
• 2026-09-24 — wa-notary — remote online notarization detail (low)
  Washington's remote-notarization section cited '-.45.280', a broken fragment of the statute number. The same page cites RCW 42.45.280 in full in its legal basis and FAQ, so the fragment was restored to RCW 42.45.280.
• 2026-09-24 — ma-notary — bond (low)
  Massachusetts' bond section said the word 'insurance' appears in the notary law only in 's. 3-102-style contexts'. No such section exists in chapter 222; the fragment was a copied pattern. The sentence now describes the one passage it actually meant (section 16, on a notary employed by an insurance company).
• 2026-09-24 — il-notary — exam (medium)
  Illinois' exam section said the rules set no passing score and no number of questions. They do: 14 Ill. Adm. Code 176.235 (a section the original check did not open) requires a 50-question final exam drawn from a bank of at least 100 questions and a score of at least 85%, with re-testing on different questions after a fail. The page now quotes that rule.
• 2026-09-24 — ca-notary — exam; faq[2].a (low)
  California's exam section and exam FAQ said results come 15 business days after the exam, quoting the Secretary of State. CPS HR Consulting, which runs the exam for the state, currently says results are sent approximately 15-20 business days after the exam. The page now gives both figures, each attributed, so readers are not told to expect results sooner than the test administrator promises.
• 2026-09-24 — ca-cna — exam (medium)
  The California page said no official source publishes the written-exam question count, time limit, passing score or number of attempts. The candidate handbook of D&SDT-Headmaster, one of the three testing vendors the Department of Public Health lists, does: 75 multiple-choice questions in a maximum of 60 minutes, 75% or better to pass, a skill test of three or four tasks in 30 minutes, and three attempts within two years of finishing training before a new training program is required. The page now gives those figures and says they are that vendor's; the other two vendors' figures were not read.
• 2026-09-24 — ky-cna — exam (medium)
  The Kentucky page said the number of questions, the time allowed, the passing score and the number of skills are not published anywhere. The Kentucky Medicaid Nurse Aide Training Manual from KCTCS, the sole exam administrator (revision 7/14/26), publishes them: a timed 2-hour, 75-question multiple-choice written exam with a 70% pass mark, and at least five skills performed with 70% accuracy and every critical step correct. The page now quotes the manual.
• 2026-09-24 — ky-cna — exam, faq, quick answer (medium)
  The Kentucky page gave only one answer to how long exam results take: 'usually available within 30 days'. That wording comes from the Board of Nursing's page, but the short answer said it came from KCTCS. KCTCS's current manual says candidates are emailed and can see their results online within 72 hours, and that passing candidates reach the registry within 30 days. The page now gives both statements and says which source each comes from.
• 2026-09-24 — ky-cna — requirements, faq, quick answer (low)
  The Kentucky page listed exam-day ID only as the regulation states it: an unexpired photo ID and a Social Security card that has not been laminated. KCTCS's current manual describes the documents by the federal I-9 lists instead (one List A document, or one List B plus one List C document, all in the same full name with middle initial). It also refuses photos of documents, and a candidate without proper ID loses all testing fees. The page now gives both lists.
• 2026-09-24 — mi-cna — exam, exam vendor (medium)
  The Michigan page said Michigan publishes no passing score, question count or time limit, and that no page from the testing vendor was used. The Michigan Nurse Aide Candidate Handbook (July 2026, version 5.0), from the state's contracted tester Headmaster, publishes them: 65 multiple-choice questions, a maximum of 60 minutes, 74% or better to pass, and three or four skill tasks in 30 minutes. The page now gives those figures and says they come from that handbook.
• 2026-09-24 — dc-cna — exam, faq, quick answer (medium)
  The District of Columbia page said both parts of the exam must be passed within two years. The same Credentia candidate handbook also says, in its results section, 'You must pass the exam within twelve (12) months from the application approval date.' The page now states both time limits and where each appears, along with the two different third-failure rules it already reported.
• 2026-09-24 — de-cna — faq, fees (medium)
  The Delaware page's exam-fee answer said a $25 rescheduling or no-show fee applies inside five business days, and the fee section presented the candidate bulletin as adding to that rule. The two Prometric documents actually disagree. The January 2018 exam application lists an additional $25 fee for late rescheduling, no-shows and late arrivals. The July 2018 bulletin charges the full exam fee for rescheduling inside five working days or being turned away for lateness or missing ID, and says a candidate who misses the test or arrives late loses the fees. The page now gives both.
• 2026-09-24 — ma-cna — requirements, quick answer (low)
  The Massachusetts page said only that the Department of Public Health asks candidates to allow at least three weeks to receive test results. The testing contractor's current handbook (May 2026, Version 7.0) says official results are in the candidate's online account after 8:00PM (ET) on the business day after the test. The page now gives both statements and says which source each comes from.
• 2026-09-24 — va-cna — exam (low)
  The Virginia page gave the two-year testing deadline from the regulation and noted the candidate handbook agrees. That is true of the handbook's eligibility article, but its results article says program-trained (E1) candidates must pass within twelve months of finishing the course. The page now quotes both handbook statements next to the regulation.
• 2026-09-24 — nc-cna, wa-cna — exam vendor (low)
  The North Carolina and Washington pages said no page from the testing vendor is cited for any fact on the page. Now that the pages carry exam-day details from Credentia's candidate handbook for each state, the sentence says those details come from the vendor's handbook and every other fact comes from a state source.
• 2026-09-24 — id-electrician — exam (medium)
  The Idaho page said the journeyman and master licenses require the NASCLA examination. The Idaho Electrical Board voted at its April 29, 2026 meeting that, from fiscal year 2027, the NASCLA exams are no longer offered through PSI for Idaho applicants, and PSI's Idaho bulletin (effective July 9, 2026) now lists Idaho journeyman and master electrician exams developed by PSI. Passing NASCLA scores from exams taken directly through NASCLA are still accepted. The page now says so, with the passing scores and the $75 exam fee.
• 2026-09-24 — hi-hvac — exam (medium)
  The Hawaii HVAC contractor page named Prometric as the testing agency and said exams are given monthly. The Contractors License Board's examinations page says PSI Services has administered the contractor exams since January 2023, and PSI's bulletin allows unlimited testing during the 6-month eligibility period. The page now names PSI and gives both the rule's monthly wording and PSI's testing terms.
• 2026-09-24 — hi-hvac — fees (low)
  The Hawaii HVAC contractor page gave the exam fee as $75.00 per part, a figure from the board's 2018 FAQ. PSI's current bulletin (January 20, 2026) lists $80 per exam for the C-52 classification and every other class except A and B ($85). The page now gives PSI's figure and notes the older FAQ amount.
• 2026-09-24 — ia-hvac — fees (medium)
  The Iowa HVAC page said the exam fee paid to Kirkwood Community College is about $99 for a journeyperson exam and $95 for a master exam. Kirkwood, the board's contracted exam provider, lists $119 per attempt for both the journeyperson and master HVAC-Refrigeration with Gas exams. The board's own license pages still show the older figures, so the page now gives Kirkwood's $119 and notes the older board figures.
• 2026-09-24 — ok-hvac — fees (low)
  The Oklahoma HVAC page said the Construction Industries Board does not publish a fixed exam fee and did not name the testing vendor or passing score. The PSI candidate bulletin posted on the board's own Testing/Exam page lists $92 for each exam portion, first attempt or repeat, and a 70% passing score for the HVACR Journeyman Unlimited exam. The page now names PSI and gives those figures.
• 2026-09-24 — ct-hvac — fees (low)
  The Connecticut HVAC page said no exam fee could be stated because the state does not publish the vendor's fee. The vendor, PSI, lists $59 for each exam portion in its Connecticut heating, piping and cooling bulletin. The page now names PSI and gives that fee.
• 2026-09-24 — ct-electrician — exam (low)
  The Connecticut electrician page said the exam vendor and exam fee were not published. PSI's Connecticut electrical trades bulletin (updated February 4, 2026) names PSI as the vendor and lists $59 for each exam portion, first attempt or repeat. The page now gives both.
• 2026-09-24 — mi-electrician — fees (low)
  The Michigan electrician page said the PSI exam fee is not published. PSI's Michigan electrical bulletin (effective August 20, 2026) lists a $100 exam fee paid for each attempt. The page now gives that fee.
• 2026-09-24 — nj-hvac — exam (low)
  The New Jersey HVACR page said the exam's question counts, time limits, passing score and fee were not given because they appear only in PSI's bulletin. PSI's New Jersey bulletin (updated September 3, 2026) gives them: a trade part and a business and law part, each 50 questions in 130 minutes with 70% to pass, at $84 and $47. The page now states them.
• 2026-09-24 — de-electrician — exam (low)
  The Delaware electrician page said the exams are based on the most current National Electrical Code adopted in Delaware. The exam vendor ProV's bulletin for the Division (June 2025 edition) lists the 2020 NEC as the code book allowed for the Journeyperson Electrician exam. The page now gives both statements and says which source each comes from.
• 2026-09-24 — wi-electrician — exam (low)
  The Wisconsin electrician page said two official sources disagreed on the exam's code edition and told readers to check with the state. The state's exam pages now give the switch date: the 2017 NEC is the permitted code book until October 1, 2026 and the 2023 NEC from that date. The page now says so.
• 2026-09-24 — wi-hvac — exam (low)
  The Wisconsin HVAC page said the HVAC Qualifier exam is given at Pearson centers and at state (DSPS) exam locations. The state's trades examination page lists the HVAC Qualifier exam as only available at six Pearson centers, while the exam's own reference rules mention both Pearson and state locations. The page now gives both and says which page says what.
• 2026-09-24 — ak-hvac — exam (low)
  The Alaska HVAC page gave only the regulation's limit of three exam attempts in 12 months. PSI's Alaska bulletin says a failed exam may be retaken an unlimited number of times during the 1-year eligibility period. The page now states both and notes that the regulation is the stricter rule; it also gives PSI's $150 exam fee.
• 2026-09-24 — ma-plumber — fees (medium)
  The Massachusetts plumber page said the license fee is paid at the test site after passing. PSI's candidate bulletin for the Board (October 3, 2025) says candidates who pass both parts pay for the license through the state's eLIPSE system and that PSI does not print licenses on site. The page now gives both and says which source each comes from.
• 2026-09-24 — ga-plumber — requirements (medium)
  The Georgia plumber page said the exam reference list still named the 2018 Georgia plumbing and gas codes. The current list (effective January 1 through December 31, 2026, printed in PSI's bulletin) states that from May 1, 2026 the exam is based only on the 2024 Georgia Plumbing Code and 2024 Georgia Gas Code. The page now says so and keeps the older list as history.
• 2026-09-22 — tx-electrician — exam requirements (medium)
  The Texas electrician page said PSI's candidate bulletin and TDLR's exam information page both still named the 2023 National Electrical Code as the book allowed in the exam room. That was true when we read them on September 8, 2026. PSI reissued the bulletin on September 15, 2026 and TDLR updated its exam page, and both now name the 2026 Edition (read September 22, 2026). The page now says all four official statements agree on the 2026 code.
• 2026-09-22 — ct-notary — notary fee limit; legal basis (medium)
  The Connecticut notary page said the Secretary of the State's Notary Public Manual still printed the old $5 fee limit. The manual has since been reissued (Rev. 2026-1) and its section 5.8 now states the $10 limit in effect from July 1, 2026. Separately, the page's legal-basis table still described C.G.S. 3-95 as setting a five-dollar limit, which contradicted the page's own $10 answer. Both are corrected. The compiled statute chapter, which does still print the old figure, is still named as the one source that has not caught up.
• 2026-09-22 — wy-electrician — What Changed entry (low)
  Our What Changed entry for Wyoming's move to the 2026 National Electrical Code said the State Fire Marshal's notice still listed the 2023 edition alongside it. That was true when we read it on September 2, 2026. The notice now lists only the 2026 edition (read September 22, 2026), and the entry's headline and summary have been updated. The Wyoming electrician page itself was not affected.
• 2026-09-17 — ky-alcohol-server — faq, validity years (medium)
  ky-alcohol-server's FAQ answered 'How long is an alcohol server card valid in Kentucky?' with 'In Kentucky, an alcohol server card is valid for 3 years.' - rendered into the page and into the FAQPage JSON-LD Google reads - on a page whose own body states 'Kentucky imposes no statewide alcohol server license or card.' The three years belongs to the Kentucky ABC's STAR certification: the ABC's STAR page reads 'Certification is valid for three years' (re-read live 2026-09-17), and the Danville and Bowling Green ordinances separately require recertification every three years. The generator was the cause: our build pipeline:faq_cert_full() emitted 'In <state>, <a card> is valid for N years' for any bare-number validity years, and the card noun came from the record's `certification` field, which for a state that issues nothing carries the cluster's generic SLOT LABEL ('Alcohol Server Card') so the page can still ask the searcher's question. The template turned that question into an existence claim. Fixed at the class: our build pipeline.card_is_sourced() now distinguishes a sourced credential name from the slot label, and the assertion is emitted only when the card noun is sourced or mandate level is state-mandated. validity years was re-attributed rather than deleted - the term is true, its subject was wrong.
• 2026-09-17 — mo-alcohol-server — faq, validity years (medium)
  mo-alcohol-server's FAQ read 'In Missouri, an alcohol server card is valid for 2 years.' on a page that states 'Missouri issues no license by those names' and 'no card is mandated statewide'. Same generator mechanism as D-2026-09-17-A001. The live re-read also narrowed what the two years actually is: the Missouri ATC page's sentence 'Certifications are valid for a period of two (2) years' sits inside its 'Server Training Certification Program' block, which covers the certification of training COURSES offered by licensees and trainers ('Reapplication by a person or organization is permitted. There is no cost to apply under this program.') - not the individual's free SMART certificate. The record's own blockers field had already recorded that distinction. validity years now states both subjects, attributed, and says plainly that Missouri issues no individual server card; nothing was deleted, because the individual SMART two-year cadence was sourced to mopip.org on 2026-07-22 and there is no positive evidence it is false. Still to be sourced: that individual cadence can no longer be re-verified - mopip.org/SMART/ now serves a stub with no cadence text and /SMART/employees.html is 404 from a US vantage; smartmo.education blocks direct IP access. Settling URLs: https://smartmo.education/ and https://www.mopip.org/SMART/employees.html (archive.org returned a refusal on 2026-09-17).
• 2026-09-17 — md-alcohol-server, az-alcohol-server, sd-alcohol-server, mi-alcohol-server, co-alcohol-server, me-alcohol-server, mo-alcohol-server, nc-alcohol-server, ct-alcohol-server, ne-alcohol-server, tx-alcohol-server — mandate level rendering (state hub table + at-a-glance 'Requirement' row) (medium)
  The 51 state hubs and the at-a-glance box each carried their own copy of a map from mandate level to a status phrase, and both rendered the whole `voluntary` enum as the bare word 'Voluntary'. On 11 of the 17 voluntary records that word contradicts the record's own sourced prose, which names a sub-population under a personal legal duty: Maryland's license holder or designated employee (Alc. Bev. Art. 4-505(e)); South Dakota's 18-to-20-year-old bartenders (SDCL 35-4-79.4); Michigan's 17-year-old servers and delivery/catering employees (MCL 436.1707(7), 436.1203(12)(c) and (14)(c)); Arizona's delivery drivers, managers and - from Jan 1 2026 - off-premises mixed-cocktail restaurant staff (A.R.S. 4-205.13(D), 4-205.02(K)); Colorado's delivery staff, tasting servers, common-consumption servers and security, and in-store instructors (C.R.S. 44-3-911(3)(d), 44-3-301(10)(c), 44-3-910(1)(a), 44-3-301(13)(c)); Missouri's sampling-service employees (Mo. Rev. Stat. 311.297.3(2)); North Carolina's delivery-permit drivers (G.S. 18B-1001.4(b)); and, becoming mandatory by order or local rule rather than by role, Connecticut (Conn. Gen. Stat. 30-47(b)-(c)), Nebraska (237 Neb. Admin. Code ch.1 s.007 plus Lincoln, Kearney, Ogallala and North Platte ordinances), Texas (16 TAC 34.21) and Maine (City of Bangor, 90 days). 'Voluntary' is a legal claim, and for exactly those readers it was the wrong one. Fixed with a new mandate scope enum (statewide-optional | role-specific | order-or-local) backfilled from each record's own sourced text, one shared label partial (website/layouts/partials/credential-status.html) replacing both copies of the map, and a published definition of every label in /methodology/ section 4, which previously existed nowhere on the site.
• 2026-09-17 — az-notary — journal requirement, legal basis (high)
  From September 12, 2026 az-notary told readers that a binding statutory duty was not law. journal requirement read 'FUTURE CHANGE - THUMBPRINTS: from September 12, 2026 a right thumbprint must be taken in the journal for specified real-property documents and powers of attorney. That is NOT yet the law as of this record's verification date', and the legal basis entry was captioned 'Arizona Senate Bill 1479 (2026), signed April 9, 2026 - EFFECTIVE SEPTEMBER 12, 2026, NOT YET IN FORCE'. A.R.S. 41-254(C), added by Laws 2026, Chapter 31, took effect on September 12, 2026 - the general effective date of the Fifty-seventh Legislature, Second Regular Session, which the Legislature states on its own home page: 'The General Effective Date for the 57th 2nd Regular Session is September 12, 2026.' The page was wrong for five days. An Arizona notary relying on it would have notarized a deed or a power of attorney without taking the thumbprint the statute now requires. Both fields now state the duty in the present tense, and legal basis cites the enrolled act (azleg.gov) instead of the Secretary of State's banner, which is on a challenge-gated host our sweep cannot read.
• 2026-09-17 — az-notary — journal requirement (medium)
  az-notary described the thumbprint duty from the Secretary of State's one-paragraph banner, which states only the five document classes. The statute carries a fallback and three exemptions that the banner does not: where the right thumb is not available the notary 'shall have the party use the party's left thumb, or any available finger, and shall so indicate in the journal', and where the signer 'is physically unable to provide a thumbprint or fingerprint' the notary notes that and explains the condition; and A.R.S. 41-254(D) exempts a trustee's deed resulting from a judicial or nonjudicial foreclosure, a deed of release and reconveyance, and a remote online notarization under 41-263 - but only 'if both of the following apply: (a) The notary journal includes the individual's identification credential number. (b) the notary retains the audiovisual recording for at least seven years.' Acting on the page alone, a notary would have refused a foreclosure trustee's deed or a reconveyance for want of a print, or demanded one they are not entitled to take; a remote online notary would have read themselves as exempt on retention alone. All of it is now on the page, with 41-263(E)'s new 'except as prescribed by section 41-254' cross-reference that makes the seven years override its own five-year rule.
• 2026-09-17 — az-notary — exam (low)
  The 2026-09-02 repair that rewrote az-notary's exam field to report the Secretary of State's three stacked exam statements replaced two passages but left the sentences they superseded standing beneath them. The rendered field carried two different 'WHAT CONFLICTS:' summaries of the same conflict, the Filing Tips sentence 'Prior to completing your application, you MUST contact Pearson to register for the Notary Exam and obtain a Candidate ID Number' twice inside one field, and two restatements of the decision not to resolve the conflict. Nothing was false; the section simply said the same thing twice in slightly different words, which reads like two findings rather than one. The duplicates are removed and the dating is advanced to the 2026-09-17 US-vantage re-read, at which all three of the Secretary of State's exam blocks - the remote-suspension notice, the Pearson/$35 block and the Prometric/$46.75 block stamped 'Mar 25, 2025' - were still on the page, unwithdrawn.
• 2026-09-17 — ut-notary — requirements (medium)
  The Office of the Lieutenant Governor retired its notary application on September 15, 2026 and confirmed the replacement live on September 16: 'The new notary application is now live... You can go to notaryapplication.utah.gov to access the new application.' ut-notary's seven steps described the retired system, including a step-1 warning the office no longer publishes anywhere ('the name you use when creating your account will be as it appears on your commission and stamp'), and carried none of the transition rules. The one that costs a reader real work is unstated on our page and stated plainly on the state's: 'Any applicants with incomplete submissions in the previous application must start over in the new application. Incomplete submissions cannot be transferred to the new application.' The steps are re-quoted from the 2026-09-17 live pages, the new portal is named and added to source urls, and both announcements that date the change are cited. HYPOTHESIS TESTED AND REJECTED: that the replacement moved a fee or a step. It did not - the $55 application fee, $40 test fee, $95 total, $40 retake fee, $50 RON fee, $5,000 four-year bond, the 90-day bond-dating rule and the order of the seven steps were each checked against the live pages today and are unchanged.
• 2026-09-17 — mt-electrician — ce hours, faq, legal basis (high)
  mt-electrician published '16 hours of continuing education per year in the renewal cycle' - 32 hours over Montana's two-year cycle - and repeated it in the renewal FAQ. The current rule requires half that. ARM 24.141.2102(1), in the version effective 02/07/2026, reads: 'Sixteen hours of continuing education must be obtained during the renewal cycle. A minimum of eight hours must cover NEC updates.' The record was not wrong when written: it quoted the rule as it then stood, 'Sixteen hours of continuing education must be obtained for each year in the renewal cycle', from the board's own Electrical Laws & Rules Booklet. MAR Notice 2025-136 amended the rule effective February 7, 2026 and the booklet was never reissued - it is still stamped 'Statute/Rules as of June 07, 2024' - so the board's own PDF and the board's own website have disagreed with each other for seven months, and we followed the PDF. A Montana licensee reading our page would have bought and sat twice the continuing education the rule requires. ce hours and the FAQ now state 16 hours per two-year cycle with the rule quoted, name the February 7, 2026 change so that older guidance can be dated, and add the two instructor-credit caps the same amendment introduced at (5) and (6). legal basis for ARM 24.141.2102 is repointed from the stale booklet to the rule as published by the Secretary of State.
• 2026-09-17 — mt-electrician — ce hours, faq (medium)
  mt-electrician stated as current a continuing-education exclusion the February 2026 amendment removed: 'Basic-electric and apprentice-level courses do not count. [ARM 24.141.2102]'. That was subsection (2)(c) of the pre-2026 rule. The rule now effective runs (2)(a) and (2)(b) only, with no course-content exclusion, and the board's continuing-education page carries none either. The clause was not deleted from the page on an absence-of-evidence argument: the full current rule text was read, its subsection lettering is complete, and the only source that still carries the sentence is the board's superseded booklet. Rather than drop a fact that was true until February 7, 2026, the page now states that the current rule does not contain it and attributes the surviving sentence to the booklet, which is stamped 'Statute/Rules as of June 07, 2024'.
• 2026-09-17 — nh-food-handler — exemptions, source urls (medium)
  nh-food-handler's exemptions field ended its account of the manager-certification exemptions with: 'Food pantries were added as an exempt category by the August 25, 2026 readoption; before that date nineteen categories were listed. The state's manager-certification FAQ, last revised November 2021, still prints the nineteen-item list.' Both halves of the second sentence are false and the sentence attributes the wrong list to the wrong document. (1) COUNT: the NH DHHS Food Protection Section Certified Food Protection Manager FAQ prints EIGHTEEN exempt categories, not nineteen - the answer to Q3 runs A-1, C-5, C-6, D-4, D-6, E-1, E-3, F-1, F-2, F-3, F-4, F-5, F-6, G-1, G-2, G-3, G-7, G-8, and a full-text search of all four pages of the live PDF returns zero hits for 'F-7' and zero for 'farm store'. (2) ATTRIBUTION: the nineteen-item list belongs to the CODIFIED RULE page, which on a live read of 2026-09-17 still serves the pre-readoption He-P 2303.02(a) with nineteen categories including '(14) Category F-7, farm store', under the source note '#12852, eff 8-20-19; ss by #13428, eff 8-5-22'. So three lists exist - the FAQ's eighteen, the codified rule's nineteen and the readopted rule's twenty - and the page collapsed two of them into one. (3) DATE: 'last revised November 2021' was read off the '2021-11' upload folder in the PDF's web address; the document's own /ModDate (D:20230831100817-04'00') and the server's Last-Modified header (Thu, 31 Aug 2023 16:38:21 GMT) independently date it to 31 August 2023, making the FAQ nearly two years newer than the page claimed - the wrong direction, since the sentence exists to tell readers the FAQ lags the rule. The paragraph now names both lagging official sources separately with their real dates and states that the rule governs where the FAQ differs; the FAQ's source urls label carries the August 31, 2023 date and the eighteen-item count. Nothing true was deleted: the twenty-item readopted list was re-verified today against adopted rule #14678, whose He-P 2303.02(a) runs to twenty and ends '(20) Category I-1, food pantries' with every page stamped '#14678 (eff 8-25-26)'. last verified was deliberately not bumped (the food-protection-laws-and-rules page the record also cites was not re-read today).
• 2026-09-17 — ak-notary, al-notary, ar-notary, az-notary, ca-notary, co-notary, ct-notary, dc-notary, de-notary, fl-notary, ga-notary, hi-notary, id-notary, il-notary, in-notary, ks-notary, ky-notary, la-notary, ma-notary, md-notary, me-notary, mi-notary, mt-notary, nc-notary, ne-notary, nh-notary, nj-notary, nm-notary, nv-notary, ny-notary, pa-notary, ri-notary, sc-notary, sd-notary, tn-notary, tx-notary, ut-notary, va-notary, wa-notary, wi-notary, wv-notary, wy-notary — source urls (58), exemptions (32), training requirement (14), fees (8), ce hours (8), legal basis (8) (low)
  172 passages on 42 notary page(s) rendered internal pipeline vocabulary to readers verbatim: 'read for this record' / 'this record' / 'see the <name> field' / 'not read' / 'not examined' / 'snapshot' / 'rung' / 'fetch' / 'fetched' / 'a successful response' / 'capture' and bare internal field names (legal basis, license types, source urls, notarial fee cap). A reader has no idea what "this record", "the fees field", "a rung" or "a snapshot" is - these are our words for our own machinery, and on a page whose entire proposition is that the facts are sourced and re-checked, they read as unfinished notes. Every passage was rewritten into ordinary reader English with NO factual change: every stated limit survived ("we did not read X, so this page does not say what X provides" is preserved as a reader sentence, never dropped), every quotation from a statute or board page was left untouched, and no fee, hour count, date or citation moved. False positives were deliberately left: "pipeline" in oil-and-gas statutes, "field" where it names a box on a state search form or is statutory wording ("the specialty field", "occupy the whole field"), "capture" as ordinary English ("electronic capture" of fingerprints), and "not examined" where it means apprentices sit no exam.
• 2026-09-17 — ak-cna, al-cna, ca-cna, ct-cna, dc-cna, de-cna, ga-cna, hi-cna, id-cna, il-cna, ky-cna, la-cna, ma-cna, md-cna, me-cna, mi-cna, nc-cna, ne-cna, nh-cna, nj-cna, nv-cna, oh-cna, sd-cna, ut-cna, wy-cna — requirements (12), exemptions (12), exam (8), fees (7), license types (7), ce hours (6) (low)
  69 passages on 25 cna page(s) rendered internal pipeline vocabulary to readers verbatim: 'read for this record' / 'this record' / 'see the <name> field' / 'not read' / 'not examined' / 'snapshot' / 'rung' / 'fetch' / 'fetched' / 'a successful response' / 'capture' and bare internal field names (legal basis, license types, source urls, notarial fee cap). A reader has no idea what "this record", "the fees field", "a rung" or "a snapshot" is - these are our words for our own machinery, and on a page whose entire proposition is that the facts are sourced and re-checked, they read as unfinished notes. Every passage was rewritten into ordinary reader English with NO factual change: every stated limit survived ("we did not read X, so this page does not say what X provides" is preserved as a reader sentence, never dropped), every quotation from a statute or board page was left untouched, and no fee, hour count, date or citation moved. False positives were deliberately left: "pipeline" in oil-and-gas statutes, "field" where it names a box on a state search form or is statutory wording ("the specialty field", "occupy the whole field"), "capture" as ordinary English ("electronic capture" of fingerprints), and "not examined" where it means apprentices sit no exam.
• 2026-09-17 — ct-food-manager, ks-food-manager, sd-food-manager, wi-food-manager, wy-food-manager — negative research (8), local overrides (3), legal basis (2), food handler relationship (1), county exceptions (1), fees regulatory (1) (low)
  19 passages on 5 food-manager page(s) rendered internal pipeline vocabulary to readers verbatim: 'read for this record' / 'this record' / 'see the <name> field' / 'not read' / 'not examined' / 'snapshot' / 'rung' / 'fetch' / 'fetched' / 'a successful response' / 'capture' and bare internal field names (legal basis, license types, source urls, notarial fee cap). A reader has no idea what "this record", "the fees field", "a rung" or "a snapshot" is - these are our words for our own machinery, and on a page whose entire proposition is that the facts are sourced and re-checked, they read as unfinished notes. Every passage was rewritten into ordinary reader English with NO factual change: every stated limit survived ("we did not read X, so this page does not say what X provides" is preserved as a reader sentence, never dropped), every quotation from a statute or board page was left untouched, and no fee, hour count, date or citation moved. False positives were deliberately left: "pipeline" in oil-and-gas statutes, "field" where it names a box on a state search form or is statutory wording ("the specialty field", "occupy the whole field"), "capture" as ordinary English ("electronic capture" of fingerprints), and "not examined" where it means apprentices sit no exam.
• 2026-09-17 — ar-hvac, hi-hvac, id-hvac, il-hvac, md-hvac, me-hvac, mt-hvac, ny-hvac, pa-hvac, sd-hvac, wa-hvac — requirements (6), license types (3), source urls (3), explanation (3), renewal cycle (1), where to check (1) (low)
  19 passages on 11 hvac page(s) rendered internal pipeline vocabulary to readers verbatim: 'read for this record' / 'this record' / 'see the <name> field' / 'not read' / 'not examined' / 'snapshot' / 'rung' / 'fetch' / 'fetched' / 'a successful response' / 'capture' and bare internal field names (legal basis, license types, source urls, notarial fee cap). A reader has no idea what "this record", "the fees field", "a rung" or "a snapshot" is - these are our words for our own machinery, and on a page whose entire proposition is that the facts are sourced and re-checked, they read as unfinished notes. Every passage was rewritten into ordinary reader English with NO factual change: every stated limit survived ("we did not read X, so this page does not say what X provides" is preserved as a reader sentence, never dropped), every quotation from a statute or board page was left untouched, and no fee, hour count, date or citation moved. False positives were deliberately left: "pipeline" in oil-and-gas statutes, "field" where it names a box on a state search form or is statutory wording ("the specialty field", "occupy the whole field"), "capture" as ordinary English ("electronic capture" of fingerprints), and "not examined" where it means apprentices sit no exam.
• 2026-09-17 — az-contractor, fl-contractor, ms-contractor — license types (5), fees (2), faq (2) (low)
  9 passages on 3 contractor page(s) rendered internal pipeline vocabulary to readers verbatim: 'read for this record' / 'this record' / 'see the <name> field' / 'not read' / 'not examined' / 'snapshot' / 'rung' / 'fetch' / 'fetched' / 'a successful response' / 'capture' and bare internal field names (legal basis, license types, source urls, notarial fee cap). A reader has no idea what "this record", "the fees field", "a rung" or "a snapshot" is - these are our words for our own machinery, and on a page whose entire proposition is that the facts are sourced and re-checked, they read as unfinished notes. Every passage was rewritten into ordinary reader English with NO factual change: every stated limit survived ("we did not read X, so this page does not say what X provides" is preserved as a reader sentence, never dropped), every quotation from a statute or board page was left untouched, and no fee, hour count, date or citation moved. False positives were deliberately left: "pipeline" in oil-and-gas statutes, "field" where it names a box on a state search form or is statutory wording ("the specialty field", "occupy the whole field"), "capture" as ordinary English ("electronic capture" of fingerprints), and "not examined" where it means apprentices sit no exam.
• 2026-09-17 — nc-plumber, ny-plumber, oh-plumber, pa-plumber — source urls (4), exemptions (3), requirements (1), legal basis (1) (low)
  9 passages on 4 plumber page(s) rendered internal pipeline vocabulary to readers verbatim: 'read for this record' / 'this record' / 'see the <name> field' / 'not read' / 'not examined' / 'snapshot' / 'rung' / 'fetch' / 'fetched' / 'a successful response' / 'capture' and bare internal field names (legal basis, license types, source urls, notarial fee cap). A reader has no idea what "this record", "the fees field", "a rung" or "a snapshot" is - these are our words for our own machinery, and on a page whose entire proposition is that the facts are sourced and re-checked, they read as unfinished notes. Every passage was rewritten into ordinary reader English with NO factual change: every stated limit survived ("we did not read X, so this page does not say what X provides" is preserved as a reader sentence, never dropped), every quotation from a statute or board page was left untouched, and no fee, hour count, date or citation moved. False positives were deliberately left: "pipeline" in oil-and-gas statutes, "field" where it names a box on a state search form or is statutory wording ("the specialty field", "occupy the whole field"), "capture" as ordinary English ("electronic capture" of fingerprints), and "not examined" where it means apprentices sit no exam.
• 2026-09-17 — in-food-handler, nc-food-handler, wa-food-handler — source urls (2), exemptions (1), legal basis (1) (low)
  4 passages on 3 food-handler page(s) rendered internal pipeline vocabulary to readers verbatim: 'read for this record' / 'this record' / 'see the <name> field' / 'not read' / 'not examined' / 'snapshot' / 'rung' / 'fetch' / 'fetched' / 'a successful response' / 'capture' and bare internal field names (legal basis, license types, source urls, notarial fee cap). A reader has no idea what "this record", "the fees field", "a rung" or "a snapshot" is - these are our words for our own machinery, and on a page whose entire proposition is that the facts are sourced and re-checked, they read as unfinished notes. Every passage was rewritten into ordinary reader English with NO factual change: every stated limit survived ("we did not read X, so this page does not say what X provides" is preserved as a reader sentence, never dropped), every quotation from a statute or board page was left untouched, and no fee, hour count, date or citation moved. False positives were deliberately left: "pipeline" in oil-and-gas statutes, "field" where it names a box on a state search form or is statutory wording ("the specialty field", "occupy the whole field"), "capture" as ordinary English ("electronic capture" of fingerprints), and "not examined" where it means apprentices sit no exam.
• 2026-09-17 — nd-alcohol-server — source urls (1) (low)
  1 passages on 1 alcohol-server page(s) rendered internal pipeline vocabulary to readers verbatim: 'read for this record' / 'this record' / 'see the <name> field' / 'not read' / 'not examined' / 'snapshot' / 'rung' / 'fetch' / 'fetched' / 'a successful response' / 'capture' and bare internal field names (legal basis, license types, source urls, notarial fee cap). A reader has no idea what "this record", "the fees field", "a rung" or "a snapshot" is - these are our words for our own machinery, and on a page whose entire proposition is that the facts are sourced and re-checked, they read as unfinished notes. Every passage was rewritten into ordinary reader English with NO factual change: every stated limit survived ("we did not read X, so this page does not say what X provides" is preserved as a reader sentence, never dropped), every quotation from a statute or board page was left untouched, and no fee, hour count, date or citation moved. False positives were deliberately left: "pipeline" in oil-and-gas statutes, "field" where it names a box on a state search form or is statutory wording ("the specialty field", "occupy the whole field"), "capture" as ordinary English ("electronic capture" of fingerprints), and "not examined" where it means apprentices sit no exam.
• 2026-09-17 — mt-electrician — source urls (1) (low)
  1 passages on 1 electrician page(s) rendered internal pipeline vocabulary to readers verbatim: 'read for this record' / 'this record' / 'see the <name> field' / 'not read' / 'not examined' / 'snapshot' / 'rung' / 'fetch' / 'fetched' / 'a successful response' / 'capture' and bare internal field names (legal basis, license types, source urls, notarial fee cap). A reader has no idea what "this record", "the fees field", "a rung" or "a snapshot" is - these are our words for our own machinery, and on a page whose entire proposition is that the facts are sourced and re-checked, they read as unfinished notes. Every passage was rewritten into ordinary reader English with NO factual change: every stated limit survived ("we did not read X, so this page does not say what X provides" is preserved as a reader sentence, never dropped), every quotation from a statute or board page was left untouched, and no fee, hour count, date or citation moved. False positives were deliberately left: "pipeline" in oil-and-gas statutes, "field" where it names a box on a state search form or is statutory wording ("the specialty field", "occupy the whole field"), "capture" as ordinary English ("electronic capture" of fingerprints), and "not examined" where it means apprentices sit no exam.
• 2026-09-17 — az-notary, co-electrician, co-hvac, dc-hvac, de-alcohol-server, fl-contractor, il-notary, nh-cna, sc-alcohol-server, tn-electrician, tn-hvac, tx-plumber, ut-electrician — data/change-reviews.json: events[].was, events[].now, events[].who, events[].review.outcome (low)
  The reviewed-change block that renders on a record page was written in pipeline voice. Readers were shown "(our 2026-07-11 capture)", "(captured by the 2026-08-17 sweep)", "the text returned is identical to the capture the change was detected in", "comparing every capture from July 13 to August 12, 2026", and - worst of the set - bare internal field names inside review outcomes: "the waiver in the fees field, the cost FAQ and legal_basis", "the electronic-commission row of license_types", "entries 2-5 of source_urls", "the co-electrician renewal_cycle field reopens", "last_verified left at 2026-07-22". Each was rewritten to say the same thing in reader English ("as the page stood on July 11, 2026", "the copy we held when the change was detected", "the fee section, the cost FAQ and the legal-basis section"). No event date, quotation, headline, statute citation or ledger reference changed. Left deliberately: "as captured by the Internet Archive on June 9, 2026" on wy-electrician, which is the Archive's own standard wording for an archived copy.
• 2026-09-17 — va-contractor — license types (low)
  The Sept-10 licence->license spelling sweep (c7d0e3d, 251 files) rewrote text INSIDE a verbatim quotation: DPOR form A501-2703LIC v12 (07/01/2026) says 'complete all licence requirements' (the board's own spelling, present in data/snapshots/www.dpor.virginia.gov/87d2358e6367.txt) and the page quoted it as 'license'. Restored the source spelling with [sic] in data/processed/licenses-contractor.json; va-contractor regenerated. The other 59 spans the reviewer listed (ri-cna, food-manager, alcohol-server) quote sources that use 'license', so the sweep corrected those; nd-cna does not quote ndlegis' 'licenced nurse'; dc-hvac quotes DLCP's Refrigeration notice, which DLCP spells 'License'. Rule for future bulk edits: never rewrite text between quotation marks; diff quoted spans before landing a sweep.
• 2026-09-10 — ne-electrician — renewal cycle (low)
  The page (renewal section and the renewal FAQ) said the State Electrical Board emails renewal notices 'on August 1 and October 1 of even-numbered years'. The board changed its License Renewal page around 2026-08-25 to 'August 1 & September 1'. The freshness sweep captured the diff on 2026-08-25, but the change never reached the record: the Sept-5 pass re-stamped last verified 2026-09-05 over the stale value. A detected board-side change is only worth anything if it propagates to the page before the next verification stamp.
• 2026-09-10 — id-food-handler — exemptions (medium)
  The page said SB 1283 (2026 ch. 91, sec. 9) amended Idaho Code 39-1602 so that the 'food establishment' exclusion list 'no longer names cottage food operations'. The amended statute says the reverse in substance: the list now runs (a)-(h) and paragraph (h) excludes 'those operating pursuant to chapter 2, title 37, Idaho Code' -- producers under the Direct-to-Consumer Commerce Act, the successor of the cottage-food exemption. A reader was told the statutory carve-out had gone when it had been re-based on the new act. Two smaller mischaracterisations on the same page and in the /changes/ event were corrected at the same time: 37-203(7)'s 41F/135F thresholds DEFINE 'perishable food' (they are not holding limits the act imposes), and 37-204(3)(b)-(c)'s dairy/raw-milk conditions are separate from (d)'s ingredient prohibition, not an exception to it. The Wayback pre-amendment text could not be pulled (rate-limited), so whether paragraph (h) was newly added or reworded by sec. 9 is stated neither way on the page.
• 2026-09-10 — nv-alcohol-server — mandate level (medium)
  Lede and meta description said 'No statewide alcohol education card in Nevada, but at least one county or city requires its own' / 'at least one county or city licensing authority imposes its own requirement', while the body and FAQ correctly say the STATE statute (NRS 369.630) applies by county population and NRS 369.635 forbids local governments from adopting their own standards. The 'county-mandated' enum covers two different mechanisms -- a local ordinance (ND, NJ cities) and a state statute that applies only in part of the state (NV) -- and the opener/description templates assumed the first. The page contradicted itself.
• 2026-09-10 — nv-alcohol-server — validity years (low)
  validity years held '4 (renew by re-completing a certified program)'; the at-a-glance row appends 'years' only to a bare integer, so the live table read 'Valid for: 4' with no unit while the FAQ said '4 years'. Value now carries its unit.
• 2026-09-10 — nm-alcohol-server — changes (low)
  The reviewed-change card on the page said the proposed 15.10.2 NMAC age change had 'comments closed September 30' and that written comment 'ran August 26 to September 30, 2026' -- on 2026-09-10 the comment window was still open for 20 days. A reader who could still file a comment was told the door was shut. Rewritten as a dated span ('written comments are accepted from August 26 through September 30, 2026 at 12:00 p.m.') that does not rot.
• 2026-09-10 — sd-hvac — source urls (low)
  The source label for dlr.sd.gov/plumbing/laws.aspx told readers the page carried 'the 2024 Uniform Plumbing Code adoption notice'. The Commission replaced that notice with a pending-rulemaking notice ('The Public Hearing will be held on October 2, 2026 via Microsoft Teams'); the live read returns zero occurrences of the 2024 adoption notice. The label now names the pending rulemaking and records what it replaced. No licensing fact was wrong; the separate ARSD 20:54 label stating the 2024 code adoption completed was preserved because ARSD 20:54:02:01 still adopts the 2024 edition.
• 2026-09-10 — id-hvac — exam, source urls (medium)
  The exam field quoted DOPL verbatim - 'Applicants are now required to take and pass the appropriate examination before applying for licensure' - and dated the page 'last updated April 17, 2026'. DOPL deleted that transition announcement on 2026-08-05 and the quoted sentence returns zero hits live. The examination-before-application rule is still true and is positively supported by the live 'Next Steps After Passing' paragraph, so it was re-sourced rather than deleted. The same edit repaired three pre-existing writer defects in the source label: it asserted both orderings at once, it said the exam was 'proctored in Boise, Blackfoot and Coeur d'Alene' when those are DOPL's own office addresses in the site footer (PSI sets the test sites), and it carried a truncated fragment 'one yea;'. It also listed an 'HVAC Exam Information Bulletin' and 'ADA accommodation guidelines' that return zero hits on the live page.
• 2026-09-10 — md-cna — source urls (low)
  The source label for the Maryland Board of Nursing's Nursing Assistant Certification page described it as 'marked updated 6/21/2026' and summarised the Board's e-mail routing as three topics. The Board republished the page on 9/3/2026, renaming the dialysis-technician row and adding renewal and training-program rows. The stamp and the enumeration were corrected to the nine routing rows read live. No licensing fact on md-cna moved: the credential concerned is the dialysis technician, which COMAR 10.39.01.02B(5)(b) places outside the CNA definition.
• 2026-09-10 — mo-cna — source urls (low)
  The reader-facing source label in mo-cna's Sources & verification box quoted a portal card title verbatim - 'Inactive/Expired CNA License Renewal - NOT ELIGIBLE TO RENEW IN TMU'. The vendor rewrote that card between 2026-08-25 and 2026-08-31, dropping both the flag and the 'only submit this form if you are unable to renew in TMU' gate our clause paraphrased; the live document returns zero occurrences of 'NOT ELIGIBLE TO RENEW'. The clause now describes the card as it stands, including the 24-month self-service boundary the portal newly states. The renewal standard itself is unchanged and remains sourced to 19 CSR 30-84.010(18)(B); the record's negative claim that Missouri publishes no reciprocity fee was re-confirmed live.
• 2026-09-10 — fl-hvac — source urls, legal basis (low)
  All eight Florida statute citations on fl-hvac (455.213, 489.103, 489.105, 489.111, 489.113, 489.115, 489.117 and Chapter 489 Part I; 15 rendered links) pointed at the flsenate.gov 2025 edition after Florida published the 2026 edition in August 2026; the 2025 pages carry no superseded notice, so a reader following our link read last year's law without being told. The judge's Sept-5 comparison found the quoted text of every cited section identical across editions (455.213 lost only a fiscal-year-limited fee waiver, (16), that had already lapsed on its own terms), so no sentence changed - only the edition in the URLs. fl-cna and fl-contractor cite other 2025-edition sections (464.x; 0489.119, 455.2281) that have not yet been compared and stay queued.
• 2026-09-10 — ak-electrician — requirements (high)
  ak-electrician labelled the trainee certificate of fitness a 'Trainee level (optional path)' and said Alaska 'also issues' trainee certificates 'for those accruing hours toward a journeyman certificate'. The Mechanical Inspection Section states 'A state-issued Electrician and Power Lineman Trainee COF is required to earn hours towards a Journeyman COF', and the Department's Certificate of Fitness Information Packet (Version 20250715) says the Trainee COF is what 'allows you to begin accumulating hours towards your trade certificate'. An apprentice reading 'optional path' could work for years and find the hours uncountable. The entry is now 'Trainee certificate (required to accrue Alaska hours)' and states the indenture condition (8 AAC 90.165(b)), the Davis Bacon/RAPIDS submission, the six-year term (AS 18.62.020(a)), renewal on continued indenture (8 AAC 90.180(c)), the 2:1 job-site ratio (8 AAC 90.165(c)) and the Alaska-hours qualifier. The candidate's own citations were corrected on the live read: the six-year term is AS 18.62.020(a), not 8 AAC 90.180(c), and the military/vocational-hours provision is the packet FAQ, not 8 AAC 90.160.
• 2026-09-10 — de-electrician — requirements (medium)
  Nothing on de-electrician was false, but the record said nothing about who may file the Verification of Employment form. On 2026-07-28 the Board of Electrical Examiners added to its new-license instructions, in two places: '(It is important to note, For authentication purposes, the Verification of Employment form must be submitted directly by the supervisor - forms forwarded or submitted by the applicant cannot be accepted.)' Our page previously implied only that the applicant submits experience proof through DELPROS, so a reader could have forwarded the form and had it refused. A requirements entry was added carrying that sentence plus the unchanged W-2-and-letter fallback, the Schedule C route for self-employment and the apprenticeship-certificate exception.
• 2026-09-10 — il-notary — requirements, license types (medium)
  D-2026-08-25-A001 corrected il-notary's fees field, cost FAQ and legal basis for the P.A. 104-621 waiver of the $25 electronic-notary fee, but two sentences on the same record still told a reader to pay it: requirements step 6 read '6) PAY. $15 for the notary public commission; $25 more for an electronic notary public commission (5 ILCS 312/2-103).' and the license types electronic-commission row read 'It carries its own $25 fee'. 5 ILCS 312/2-103(b-5) says the fee under subsection (b) 'shall be waived and shall not be paid or collected'. Both sentences now keep the $25 that subsection (b) still prescribes and state the waiver and its 2028-07-24 sunset, derived from the source line '(Source: P.A. 104-621, eff. 7-24-26.)'. A repair that fixes one field and leaves the same fact contradicted elsewhere on the record is the #104 family.
• 2026-09-10 — ut-electrician — source urls (low)
  Four rendered source labels on ut-electrician read 'Apply - Journeyman Electrician (Utah applicants)', 'Apply - Residential Journeyman (Utah applicants)', 'Apply - Master Electrician (Utah applicants)' and 'Apply - Residential Master (Utah applicants)'. DOPL has merged its three audience-specific application pages per classification into one: each page is now headed 'Apply for a Journeyman Electrician License' (and the equivalents) with no '(Utah Applicants)' scope and carries an 'Out-of-State Application by Endorsement' section. Our labels told an out-of-state reader the link was not for them, steering them away from the only page carrying the endorsement instructions. All four labels now read '(Utah and out-of-state applicants; carries the Out-of-State Application by Endorsement section)' and a requirements entry quoting the endorsement route was added. No hour, examination or fee value was affected.
• 2026-09-08 — tx-electrician — exam (medium)
  The page presented the exam's code edition as an unresolved conflict between two official sources -- 16 TAC 73.100 (2026 NEC effective 2026-09-01) and TDLR's Electrician Exam Information page (still 'National Electrical Code, 2023 Edition') -- and closed by telling the reader to 'confirm the edition in the PSI Candidate Information Bulletin for the exam before scheduling.' Every individual sentence was true. The defect is that we named a document as the authority, sent the reader to it, and never opened it ourselves: the bulletin carries the answer in capitals on its cover -- 'EFFECTIVE SEPTEMBER 1, 2026, THE EXAMINATIONS WILL BE REFERENCED TO THE 2026 NEC.' This is the #110 family: when a source designates another document as authoritative, that document is a tier of the ladder, and deferring to a tier we did not climb is a defect even when nothing on the page is false. The fix does NOT collapse to 'the exam is on the 2026 NEC', because the same bulletin contradicts itself -- its Reference Materials list still names the 2023 Edition while stating that 'Examination questions are based on the current TDLR-adopted bound edition'. The page now states all four official statements and attributes each, per the house rule that conflicting official sources are reported, never silently resolved. The bulletin is now a cited source on the record, so the weekly sweep watches it.
• 2026-09-05 — in-alcohol-server — who must get (lead sentence -> glance summary + Quick facts) (high)
  The Jul-11 repair added the owner exemption (Ind. Code 7.1-3-18-9(d)) two paragraphs into who must get but left the opening sentence as 'Anyone who dispenses alcoholic beverages in Indiana must hold an ATC Employee Permit.' The glance box and Quick facts print only that opening sentence, so the collapsed default state of the page stated the exact categorical duty the tripwires regression check forbids, contradicted by the page's own Legal basis row. Lead now names the covered employee roles from 7.1-5-6-3(a) and the owner carve-out in the same sentence.
• 2026-09-05 — in-alcohol-server — source urls[7].label (medium)
  The Sources list labelled Ind. Code 7.1-3-1.5-13 as 'server must complete program within 120 days of hire' while the Legal basis row on the same page (and the statute) place the duty on the retailer/dealer PERMITTEE, who must ensure each server completes the program. The last citation a reader sees was the inverted one. Label now matches 13(a)(1).
• 2026-09-05 — ga-alcohol-server — county exceptions + FAQ (City of Atlanta pouring permits) (medium · in progress)
  'The City of Atlanta also requires employee pouring permits.' was the only uncited jurisdiction on a page where Douglas, Macon-Bibb, Cobb, Statesboro and Brookhaven each carry a source, and the record's own blockers field says the claim could not be re-verified on 2026-07-12. Retention without deletion was right; publishing it flat was not. Cross-AI review (Gemini) argued the qualifier would be stripped by answer engines and the claim should go; the code read supplied the evidence the deletion rule requires.
• 2026-09-05 — ct-alcohol-server, de-alcohol-server, ga-alcohol-server — first-sentence.html (glance preview splitter) (low)
  Previews ended at 'R.C.S.A', '4 Del. C' and '(e.g.' — each left an open parenthesis or a half-citation as the visible summary. Sibling of D-2026-09-02-A004 (#161): the Sept-2 fix extended the FAQ splitter's list but the Hugo partial has its own list, and no list is complete.
• 2026-09-05 — (cluster-wide) — raw .Params fields printed by partials (low)
  Goldmark converts ' -- ' in the markdown body; the glance box, Legal basis and Sources print .Params raw, so GA/IL showed 'clerks -- that is governed' in the glance and 'clerks – that is governed' in the body.
• 2026-09-05 — (cluster-wide) — mandate level label (at-a-glance + term) (low)
  The county-mandated enum covers every sub-state mandate, but its label said 'counties'; the Idaho line beneath it said 'city-required in Boise (60 days) and Meridian (30 days)' and no Idaho county requires anything.
• 2026-09-05 — (cluster-wide) — change-reviews.json review.outcome (low)
  A reviewed-event outcome said 'comparing every capture from July 13 to today'; 'today' was the Aug-12 review date, not the reader's.
• 2026-09-05 — ne-electrician — exam + license types (journeyman row) + exam FAQ (medium)
  Nebraska's State Electrical Division revised its exam page between the 2026-07-20 and 2026-08-24 captures: the examination outline went from five listed topics to four, dropping 'Blueprint Reading'. ne-electrician listed the five-topic outline in three places for at least 12 days after the change. The list is expressly non-exhaustive ('is not limited to'), so no 'no longer examined' claim was added.
• 2026-09-05 — mt-hvac — explanation, requirements (2 items), coverage notes, also known as, where to check, faq (2), legal basis, source urls (high)
  HB 239 (Ch. 644, L. 2025) converted Montana's construction contractor registration into a Construction Contractor License on January 1, 2026 with a public-protection purpose (MCA 37-45-101) and conduct rules (ARM 24.227.2301). mt-hvac said the credential 'changed its name, though not its substance' and, in five places, quoted the retired registration page in the present tense - 'The CR certificate is not a license and does not ensure quality of work' - while citing a URL that now 404s. The load-bearing half (no examination, education or experience requirement) was and is true; it is now stated as a sourced negative from the live statute and programme materials rather than as the department's retired description. Process, mail-in and $500-fine details from the retired page were moved to past tense and flagged as not restated by the current materials.
• 2026-09-05 — fl-hvac — source urls + legal basis + prose links (15 year-pinned statute URLs) (low · in progress)
  Florida published its 2026 statutes edition in August 2026. fl-hvac's Florida Senate links were pinned to the 2025 edition; the cited text (455.213(13), ch. 489) is word-for-word unchanged, so no fact was wrong, but a year-pinned statute URL is an archive, not a watch, and would never have shown a Florida amendment.
• 2026-09-05 — wi-food-handler — who must get + legal basis + FAQ ('operator/manager, or designee') (medium)
  The page said each restaurant must have 'at least one operator/manager, or designee, who is a certified food protection manager'. Wis. Stat. s. 97.33(1r) requires the operator or manager of the restaurant to be a certificate holder and contains no designee clause; the 'or his or her designee' option exists only in s. 97.33(1m), for school lunchrooms in the National School Lunch Program. A restaurant reading our page could have concluded that a designated employee's certificate satisfies the duty.
• 2026-09-02 — la-alcohol-server — approved provider rule (and the derived FAQ answer built from it) (medium)
  The page said 'After completing an approved course, the server's RV card is available to print from the ATC website about 7-10 days later.' Since a change detected 2026-08-10, the Louisiana ATC Responsible Vendor Information page states that online printing of RV permits is 'currently unavailable' and that a copy must be requested by public records request or by email carrying full name, date of birth and last four SSN digits; the handbook's print URL now redirects to the ATC home page. The 2021 handbook still says 7-10 days online. Corrected to carry BOTH official sources with dates. Facts unaffected: 45-day rule, four-year term, $25 course cap, $5 replacement fee.
• 2026-09-02 — la-contractor — license types (specialty classification passage), exam, faq (medium)
  The page said S.14 Water Well Drilling and S.17 Environmental Wells were marked 'Credential' on the LSLBC classification list. La. R.S. 37:2156.5(B) (Acts 481/757 of 2026), effective July 1, 2026 per the board's July 13, 2026 memorandum, now requires those contractors to 'pass the appropriate examination', and the board re-marked both entries 'Trade Exam'. Corrected in all three fields; the DNR-licensure note stays because the list still carries it. The classifier scored this row 35 because the diff had zero length change - a +0 delta is exactly what a same-length label swap looks like.
• 2026-09-02 — vt-notary — exam (WHEN IT STARTED quotation) and two source urls labels (low)
  OPR removed spent transition text from its Notary FAQ (the February 1, 2021 exam start sentence) and removed the Emergency RON Rules and DRAFT CE Rules links from its landing page. Our page quoted the deleted sentence as current FAQ text and described the removed links. No fact was falsified - the exam requirement stands (FAQ now: 'Yes, successful passage of a jurisprudence examination ... is required') - so the fix is re-attribution with dates, not deletion.
• 2026-09-02 — ar-alcohol-server — faq - 'How much does an alcohol server card cost in Arkansas?' (derived from cost range by enrich_faqs.py) (high)
  The FAQ answer read 'Two $25 figures apply, and they are different things. Ark. Code Ann. sec. 3-4-807(a) imposes a $25 annual fee on each permittee (establishment)...' and stopped - it promised two figures and gave only the establishment fee, omitting the $25 course-cost cap that is the reader's figure. Cause: our build pipeline.lead_trim() counted 'Ark.' as a sentence end because the abbreviation set lacked the Bluebook state abbreviations; 3 'sentences' were kept. Fix: 31 abbreviations added, both cert clusters' derived FAQs refreshed (22 answers on 21 pages lengthened; a hand-fixed Indiana answer preserved via a new faq hand edited flag).
• 2026-09-02 — ny-alcohol-server, ct-alcohol-server, az-alcohol-server, co-alcohol-server, nc-alcohol-server, md-alcohol-server, ne-alcohol-server — <title> (head.html SEO title derivation) (medium)
  head.html cut titles over 60 characters at a word boundary, turning 'Does Arizona Require a Basic Title 4 Training Certificate of Completion?' into 'Does Arizona Require a Basic Title 4 Training Certificate' (and NC lost its '?' to the parenthetical rule). A question presented as a statement is a claim the page does not make. Fix: a base title ending in '?' is never cut; the health check exempts them from the 60-char rule.
• 2026-09-02 — (cluster-wide) — at-a-glance box label (low)
  The glance box labelled the mandate row 'Required' and printed the enum value, so voluntary-enum pages read 'Required: Voluntary' (AR, AZ, CO alcohol-server in the rotation; every voluntary page site-wide). Label changed to 'Requirement'.
• 2026-09-02 — wi-electrician — legal basis citation for ch. SPS 316 (and the exam/FAQ text now carrying a two-source note) (medium)
  The legal basis line described ch. SPS 316 as the 'basis for the 2017 NEC exam scope, effective Aug 1 2018'. CR 26-016 revised the chapter to adopt the 2023 NEC effective Sept. 1, 2026 (s. SPS 316.007(1)(a): 'NFPA 70 National Electrical Code, (NEC) - 2023'). DSPS's Master Electrician Exam Information page still lists the 2017 NEC book as the permitted exam reference, so the exam text keeps the 2017 statement and now names the conflict with both sources dated. Moat note: the monitored URL is the CHAPTER page, whose capture holds only the TOC and first three sections and never contained the edition - the swap was structurally invisible; s. SPS 316.007 is now cited and will be monitored.
• 2026-09-02 — tn-electrician — requirements[] 'LLE - Trade exam' (low)
  The bullet read 'Pass the LLE trade exam (administered via PSI/Prov)'. The Board's LLE page has read 'Trade Exam: Administered through Prov' since July 2026; PSI only finishes exams already scheduled, through September 2026. The pair read as a live choice of vendor. Qualified with the Board's wording and both transition dates; tn-hvac already stated the transition correctly. A tripwire on the 'through September' clause fires Oct 1, 2026 (both TN pages then need past tense).
• 2026-09-02 — nm-hvac — license types (MM-3 scope quotation, MM-98 composition, JR two-source note, apprentice-ratio quotation), also known as, legal basis (medium)
  Four passages quoted 14.6.6.11 NMAC text that the CID amendment effective August 1, 2026 replaced: the MM-3 scope (now HVAC/hydronics/fuel gas/process piping with 48-volt control wiring; paragraph renumbered (B)(3)->(B)(2)), the MM-98 composition (now MM-1 and MM-3 plus MS-3 and MS-6; MM-2 and MM-4 repealed), the JR two-source conflict the page hedged (now resolved - both rules read 'MM-3 or MM-98'), and 'unregistered apprentices' in the ratio rule (word struck; ratios unchanged). All four became wrong on 2026-08-01. The record's own the record's provenance notes tripwire ('must be re-verified when any amendment is adopted') was correct and unread; the monitored SRCA compiled parts still served pre-amendment text a month later.
• 2026-09-02 — az-notary — exam ('WHAT AGREES ... remote option available'), requirements step 2, fees, faq[0].a, faq[1].a (medium)
  The page framed the exam conflict as 'website says Pearson/$35 vs manual says Prometric/$46.75' and listed 'remote option available' among the points every source agreed on. The Secretary of State's notary page itself carries three stacked exam statements, none withdrawn: a Remote Notary Exam Notice (present since at least 2026-06-12) saying remote testing is 'temporarily suspended' with in-person testing at Prometric's 12 sites; a newer Pearson/$35 block (appeared 2026-07-10..08-17); and the original Prometric/$46.75 block stamped Mar 25, 2025. The notice predates our 2026-08-12 verification, so the 'remote option available' claim was wrong at write time. Corrected to report all three statements with dates and to tell the reader not to assume a remote sitting; no vendor or figure deleted.
• 2026-09-02 — or-cna — fees (Workforce Data Analysis Fund surcharge), renewal cycle, faq cost answer (medium)
  The page said the renewal surcharge was $4 in three places, implying a $64 renewal. OAR 851-002-0040(9) has read '$8' since BN 3-2026 took effect August 22, 2026 (passing through the OHA workforce reporting fee rising $2 to $4 per license year); renewal is $68. Monitoring blind spot: our first capture of the OSBN fee division is dated 2026-08-24, two days AFTER the change, so it baselined at $8 and no diff could ever fire - a source added to the watch after a change has no memory of it; new fee sources must be reconciled against the page on the day they are added.
• 2026-09-02 — or-cna — requirements (military route, background-check wording), renewal cycle (state-records clause, reinstatement wording, sub-paragraph pins), license types CMA note, legal basis division-62 note, two FAQ answers (low)
  BN 5-2026 (filed 2026-08-21, effective 2026-09-01) amended nine division-62 rules. On our page: the military endorsement route narrowed from 'A Joint Services transcript and DD214 form' to a transcript showing aeronautical medic / combat medic 68W / naval corpsman training (the Board's endorsement directions still say DD214 - both stated); the renewal rule's state-records background-check clause was removed as redundant with OAR 851-001-0115, which still applies to renewal (the check did NOT disappear - deleting it would have deleted a true fact); 'can apply' became 'must apply' for reinstatement after two years; sub-paragraphs renumbered (2)(d)->(2)(c); and 851-062-0080's 'Oregon CMA certificate' was corrected by the Board to 'CNA' (our quote had been accurate). Re-attributed with dates throughout.
• 2026-09-02 — ct-notary — notarial fee cap, faq 'What can a Connecticut notary charge?', a source label (high)
  The page stated the notary fee ceiling as $5.00 per act plus 35 cents per mile in three places. Public Act 26-81, Section 13 (approved May 26, 2026, effective July 1, 2026) amended C.G.S. 3-95 to 'ten dollars plus an additional rate for each mile of travel not exceeding the business standard mileage rate determined by the Internal Revenue Service'. Both monitored sources still print the old ceiling - the compiled chapter 33 is revised only to January 1, 2026 and the Secretary of the State's manual is Rev. 2023-2 - so no diff could fire: a publication-window blind spot, not a fetch failure. Corrected with both old and new figures dated and both lagging sources named.
• 2026-09-02 — nh-food-handler — exemptions (He-P 2303.02(a) list) (medium)
  The page's list of establishment categories exempt from New Hampshire's certified food protection manager requirement stopped at nineteen; He-P 2303.02(a) as readopted effective August 25, 2026 lists twenty, adding 'Category I-1, food pantries' (and rewording F-5 to include unattended markets). A food pantry reading our page would have concluded the manager certification applied to it. The monitored online chapter still served the nineteen-item text eight days after the rule took effect; the adopted-rule filing is the leading instrument and is now cited.
• 2026-09-01 — sc-alcohol-server — legal basis citation — ratification and signature dates (low)
  The 2026-08-25 repair of D-2026-08-25-A002 read the SC General Assembly status block one row off, taking the date that FOLLOWS a label instead of the one that PRECEDES it. It shipped 'Ratified Mar. 9, 2026; signed by the Governor Mar. 10, 2026' to sc-alcohol-server; the primary source says ratified Mar. 5 and signed Mar. 9 ('3/5/2026 Ratified R 113', '3/9/2026 Signed By Governor', "Governor's Action: March 9, 2026, Signed", and the enacted clause 'Ratified the 5th day of March, 2026. Approved the 9th day of March, 2026.'). The wrong reading was ALSO published on the public /corrections/ page, so the receipts surface asserted the error as the fix. Both the citation and the ledger entry are corrected. The reader-facing May 1, 2026 deadline was never wrong.
• 2026-09-01 — in-cna — exam / notes — a directly quoted list from the exam administrator (medium)
  in-cna quoted Ivy Tech's list of accepted CNA applications and rendered its last entry as bare 'Military Health Care Experience'. The live document reads 'Military Health Care Experience (skills testing required effective 9/1/26)' — the quotation dropped a qualifier that changes what the entry requires, inside quotation marks. Fixed. Two related staleness repairs shipped with it: the record framed the 9/1/26 both-portions requirement as 'A CHANGE ALREADY SCHEDULED ... those candidates currently test on one portion', which became false at 00:00 on 2026-09-01, and is now stated as in force; and the divergence between Ivy Tech's two documents (Process Changes names only EMR and Psychiatric Attendant; Application Information extends the qualifier to Military Health Care Experience) is now stated and attributed to each, per the both-sources rule, rather than resolved silently. CAUSE NOT ESTABLISHED: whether Ivy Tech edited the document after our 2026-08-16 capture or the capture dropped the qualifier cannot be determined — the six docs.google.com snapshots hold only a JS shell and Wayback's newest capture is 2024-06-13. Deliberately NOT recorded as a board-side change.
• 2026-09-01 — food-manager — /food-manager/ state table — Idaho row (medium)
  The /food-manager/ hub's Idaho row published a live hedge: 'note an open conflict: the rule adopts the 2013 FDA Food Code, and whether the cited manager-certification section appears in that edition is not yet re-verified'. There is no conflict. FDA's 2013 Food Code (fda.gov/media/87140/download, 768 pp., printed p. 28) carries sec. 2-102.12 'Certified Food Protection Manager' verbatim, and its own Annex 2 records it as newly added in that edition. IDAPA 16.02.19.002 incorporates the 2013 edition and states at 001.03 that the Idaho rule text IS the exhaustive change list; 2-102.12 does not appear in it, so it is incorporated unmodified. Kentucky (902 KAR 45:005 Sec. 9, read live) is the same shape and its row already said so without a hedge, so the table contradicted itself. ROOT CAUSE IS THE INTERESTING PART: this exact hypothesis was raised and DISPROVED on 2026-07-16 (D-2026-07-16-B001, against the same FDA PDF); a later cross-AI audit re-raised it as CRITICAL, and because reviewer doubt was treated as a finding rather than reconciled against the ledger, the doubt itself was written into a live page. A reviewer finding must be checked against the defect ledger for prior resolution BEFORE it is published as an open question. The id-food-handler and ky-food-handler pages were both re-verified in the same pass and are CORRECT AS PUBLISHED — nothing was deleted.

August 2026

• 2026-08-25 — il-notary — fees + faq (cost of an electronic notary commission) + legal basis[0].what_it_governs (high)
  il-notary stated that an electronic notary 'pays $40 in state fees' -- the $15 appointment fee plus the $25 electronic-notary fee of 5 ILCS 312/2-103(b). Illinois waived that $25. P.A. 104-621 (eff. 7-24-26) added 2-103(b-5): 'The fee under subsection (b) shall be waived and shall not be paid or collected. This subsection is inoperative on and after the date 2 years after the effective date of this amendatory Act of the 104th General Assembly.' So from 2026-07-24 an electronic notary pays $15, not $40, and the $25 returns on 2028-07-24 unless amended again. The page had been correct when written (verified 2026-08-13, eleven days before the amendment landed in the ILCS text we monitor). Repaired in three places: the fees field, the cost FAQ, and the legal basis description of what the Electronic Notarization Fund receives. The $25 was NOT deleted -- subsection (b) still prescribes it; the page now states the fee, the waiver, and the 2028-07-24 sunset.
• 2026-08-25 — sc-alcohol-server — legal basis citation for the 2026 joint resolution (low)
  The record cited '2026 Joint Resolution (Bill 5261) ... (signed Mar. 9, 2026)'. Two errors were fixed on 2026-08-25: the resolution now has a durable act number (2026 Act No. 265) that the citation did not carry, and the single 'signed Mar. 9' date did not separate ratification from the Governor's signature. CORRECTED 2026-09-01 — the 2026-08-25 repair itself assigned the WRONG dates and this entry published that wrong reading. In the General Assembly's status block the DATE PRECEDES its label ('3/5/2026 Ratified R 113' / '3/9/2026 Signed By Governor' / '3/10/2026 Effective date 03/09/26'), and the enacted text states 'Ratified the 5th day of March, 2026. Approved the 9th day of March, 2026.' Correct dates: ratified Mar. 5, signed Mar. 9, effective Mar. 9, 2026. The May 1, 2026 compliance deadline the resolution sets was correct throughout and is unaffected.
• 2026-08-25 — ut-hvac — source urls label + provenance notes (stated effective date of the cited rule version) (low)
  ut-hvac told the reader it was citing 'Utah Construction Trades Licensing Act Rule (effective 6/25/2026)'. Utah replaced that version on 08/07/2026. The substantive figures the page draws from R156-55a-302d were re-checked against the new snapshot and are UNCHANGED ($1,000,000 per incident / $2,000,000 total); what moved was the effective date and the internal subsection lettering ((i)->(a), (A)->(i), (B)->(ii)). Nothing was deleted; the citation now names the current version and records which version was first captured.
• 2026-08-25 — food-manager — lede + Oregon table cell + Oregon detail section + summary line + FAQ (high)
  The /food-manager/ hub, shipped 2026-08-24, told readers Oregon's manager mandate 'only phases in from 2029' -- in the lede, the Oregon table cell, the summary line under the table, the Oregon detail section and the closing FAQ. The earliest Oregon deadline is **July 1, 2028**, eighteen months earlier, and it binds grocery, convenience and other retail food establishments licensed by the Oregon Department of Agriculture. ODA Retail Food Code 2026 s 2-102.12(A), incorporated by OAR 603-025-0030: 'By July 1, 2028, FOOD ESTABLISHMENTS must have at least one CERTIFIED FOOD PROTECTION MANAGER on staff as evidenced by a valid certificate available from an ACCREDITED PROGRAM... If the CERTIFIED FOOD PROTECTION MANAGER leaves employment for any reason, the FOOD ESTABLISHMENT must have another CERTIFIED FOOD PROTECTION MANAGER on staff within sixty days.' The 2029/2031 dates we published are real but belong to the OHA side (OAR 333-150-0000 s 2-102.12(A)-(B)) and cover restaurants, not retail. A retail operator reading our page would have believed they had until 2029 to comply. All five locations repaired and the two-regulator split is now stated explicitly, with the ODA 60-day replacement rule and the note that OHA's own program page and ODA's own handout each state the duty more loosely than the rules they cite.
• 2026-08-12 — wy-food-handler — county exceptions (Teton County CFPM mandate, Teton County Rules for Food Safety Ch.1 §11) (medium)
  wy-food-handler's county exceptions quoted the SUPERSEDED Teton County rule: 'Rules for Food Safety, Ch.1 §11, "At least one employee that has supervisory and management responsibility... shall be a certified food protection manager," effective Jan 1, 2015', and described the duty as 'typically one supervisory employee per establishment'. Teton County's FOOD RULE 2026, adopted by the Board of Health on May 19, 2026, rewrote that provision: §11(a) now reads 'The person in charge, as defined in Chapter 1, Section 9, shall be a Certified Food Protection Manager...', and §9(a) requires the license holder to 'ensure that a person in charge is present at the establishment or processing plant during all hours of operation.' The duty therefore attaches to whoever is in charge at any operating hour rather than to one designated supervisor. New §11(b) requires a departing CFPM to be replaced within ninety days. The base code also moved from the 2013 to the 2022 FDA Food Code, and the 'effective Jan 1, 2015' clause our page quoted no longer exists in the rule. SEVERITY MEDIUM, and the direction matters: the error UNDER-stated a requirement, which is the harmful direction, and a Teton operator relying on our sentence could certify one supervisor and believe they were compliant. It is not rated high because the page's primary answer — Wyoming requires no statewide food-handler card — was and remains correct and independently re-verified, the clause already told the reader Teton mandates a CFPM, and it points at the county. What would move it to high: evidence that a reader treats this clause as their compliance source rather than as a pointer.
• 2026-08-12 — nc-plumber — source urls label + provenance notes tripwire (Residential Fire Sprinkler Installation Contractor course) (low)
  nc-plumber's Sources & verification block rendered the phrase 'a 16-hour course "offered in the Fall of 2026"' as a quotation from the Board's Applicant Information page, and the record banked a tripwire on the same wording. The Board has replaced that sentence with 'The course is currently being offered', and a Trade Talk item of 2026-08-06 sets an application and self-study deadline of October 15, 2026. No stated REQUIREMENT on the page was wrong, which is why this is low severity — the defect is that we attributed to the Board a sentence it no longer publishes, and that the reader was not told about a deadline that expires in two months. Two of the Board's own pages disagree on the classroom date (Trade Talk: November 19, 2026; RFSIC-2026 information sheet: a one-day course in Statesville on November 10, 2026); the repair carries both and attributes each rather than picking one.
• 2026-08-11 — mn-hvac — fees + requirements[Minneapolis - HVAC Class A / Class B contractor license] (high)
  mn-hvac stated in TWO fields that Minneapolis HVAC 'Class B (cleaning only) requires a $10,000 bond from the City', alongside a State of MN $25,000 bond for Class A. Minneapolis revised the page on 2026-08-06 to a single bond rule covering both classes: 'You must provide a surety bond with your application. HVAC Class A and B requires a State of MN $25,000 bond.' The $10,000 City bond is gone. A user reading our page would have budgeted the wrong bond and looked for a City instrument that the City no longer requires. The Class A / Class B SCOPE definitions (A = install/fix/clean, B = clean only) are unchanged and were left alone.
• 2026-08-11 — il-food-handler — mandate detail (quoted text of 410 ILCS 625/3.06(b)) (medium)
  il-food-handler quoted 410 ILCS 625/3.06(b) as covering food handlers in 'nursing homes, licensed day care homes and facilities, hospitals, schools and long-term care facilities'. Illinois has renamed the child-care category: the section now reads 'nursing homes, licensed early care and education homes and locations, hospitals, schools, and long-term care facilities'. We were presenting superseded statutory text as the current statute.
• 2026-08-11 — nc-electrician — exemptions (bona fide employee exemption, G.S. 87-43.1(3) / 21 NCAC 18B .0306) (high)
  nc-electrician stated the bona-fide-employee exemption categorically: '(3) to any person working as a bona fide EMPLOYEE of a Board licensee - this is why individual electricians working for a licensed electrical contractor need no state license of their own', carrying NONE of 21 NCAC 18B .0306's conditions. NCBEEC amended .0306 effective AUGUST 1, 2026: the supervising listed qualified individual must now be 'issued a w-2 by the employing licensee'; new (a)(4) says 'Persons acting as independent contractors, consultants, or subcontractors, or paid in cash without tax withholding, or issued a 1099 form, are not bona fide employees'; new (a)(5) governs labor-supplier shared employees. Under .0306(c) a person who cannot substantiate compliance 'shall be deemed to be an independent contractor rather than an employee and shall be subject to G.S. Chapter 87, Article 4'. A 1099 or cash-paid electrician working for a licensed contractor would have read our page as saying they need no license of their own, when the Board's rule now says the opposite. Rated HIGH because the reader acts on it and the wrong action is operating unlicensed.
• 2026-08-05 — hi-hvac — fees + license types[sole proprietor].fee + faq (medium)
  The page attributed a $353.00 entity/sole-proprietor renewal fee to 'the board publishes', then added 'plus a contractors education fund fee of five dollars and a contractors recovery fund fee of ten dollars' on top — double-counting, because the $353.00 already contains them. That implied a $368.00 renewal, a total no source supports. The board's live renewal page for the 2026 cycle publishes $338.00 (entity and sole proprietor), $208.00 (RME) and $160.00 (inactive), with restoration at $388.00/$258.00/$210.00.
• 2026-08-05 — oh-plumber — source urls[OCILB - Verifying Licensed Contractors] + the quotations it supports in requirements, faq and exemptions (medium)
  oh-plumber cited OCILB's Verifying Licensed Contractors page and quoted it verbatim in requirements, faq and exemptions. THE URL IS NOT DEAD — it is live and still bylined 'February 28, 2025'. But OCILB REWROTE THE PAGE BODY between the 2025-06-26 archived capture and our 2026-08-03 runner snapshot WITHOUT CHANGING THAT BYLINE. Quote 1 ('In Ohio, residential contractors are not required to be licensed...') survives at the same URL in new wording; quote 2 ('Many building departments in Ohio require state licenses...') is gone from that page entirely, as is a third quote ('H.B. 434 also allows local Building Departments...') taken from the License Information page. Nothing was fabricated: both archived captures (2025-03-04, 2025-06-26) contain the original quotes verbatim.
• 2026-08-05 — nv-contractor, nv-electrician, nv-hvac — renewal cycle / fees quotations of NRS 624.283 and 624.281 (medium)
  NRS 624.283 and 624.281 (and .240/.250/.253/.265/.268 reached via bare-chapter cites) are published by leg.state.nv.us as twins in ONE page: '[Effective through December 31, 2029.]' and '[Effective January 1, 2030.]'. Our three Nevada pages quote the 2030 text. THE RISK RUNS BACKWARDS, which is why it slipped: the 2030 text is the SHORTER one, so dropping a qualifier reads as a clean match to the future version rather than as a truncation. The current text carries the rural-shortage fee waivers and the cross-references to NRS 624.242/.243 that sunset. Separately, NRS 624.242 (license by endorsement) and 624.243 (provisional license, zero fee) are absent from all three pages - our 'endorsement' discussion is the Board's exam-waiver equivalency chart, a different mechanism.
• 2026-08-05 — in-alcohol-server — who must get + faq[0].a + exemptions + legal basis (high)
  Three HIGH and two MEDIUM. (1) 'Under 7.1-3-18-9(i) the commission must revoke a permit on conviction...' was stated as ABSOLUTE. The subsection opens 'Except as provided under section 9.5 of this chapter': a holder with no prior OWI conviction who was at least 21 at the time keeps the permit by filing proof of a certified substance-abuse treatment or education program within six months of sentencing. A reader would have concluded their permit was gone when the statute gives them a cure. (2) The mandate was cited to Ind. Code 7.1-3-18-9(a), which is PERMISSIVE ('The commission MAY issue... to a person who DESIRES to act as'). The requiring provision is 7.1-5-6-3(a) - and it names SECURITY and BOUNCERS, two occupations the page omitted entirely. (3) The Restricted Employee Permit was described as a bare age tier; 7.1-5-7-13(a)(3) imposes two express conditions the page never mentioned - prior completion of a certified server program, and supervision by a person at least 21 who is present and certified. (4) MED: two express statutory exemptions were missing - dining car and boat employees (7.1-3-18-9(a)(3), 7.1-5-6-3(a)) and unpaid hospitality-management students under 7.1-3-1.7-2, who are outside both the permit AND the server-training duty. (5) MED: the population that must be TRAINED (7.1-3-1.5-1) is broader than the population that needs the permit - it reaches ID-checkers and entry controllers, with a carve-out for current and retired law-enforcement officers. NOTHING WAS FABRICATED: every substantive figure ($45/3yr, $30/2yr restricted, $15 volunteer, the 30-day receipt window, the OWI bars) verified verbatim.
• 2026-08-05 — in-food-handler — who must get + faq + exemptions + legal basis (prose) (high)
  (1) HIGH: the page stated the CFPM credential comes from a 'Conference-for-Food-Protection / ANSI-accredited PROCTORED exam (online-only food handler certificates do not qualify)' - rendered in the body AND in an FAQ answer. The word 'proctor' appears ZERO times in IC 16-42-5.2, 410 IAC 7-22, 410 IAC 7-26, the IDOH HEA-1210 memo or either IDOH page. It also omitted the statute's SECOND prong: 16-42-5.2-3.7 accepts an exam from a testing service recognized by the Conference for Food Protection 'or an equivalent nationally recognized certification program as determined by the state department'. (2) HIGH: 'Per the state rule, only Home Based Vendors must obtain a food handler certificate (Porter County LHD official page)' - the fact is right and the attribution is wrong twice over: it is a STATUTE, Ind. Code 16-42-5.3-7, not a rule, and a statewide duty was sourced to one county health department. (3) MED: 'NOT the rule 410 IAC 7-22, which EXPIRED January 1, 2022 and is no longer law' was stated as fact and cannot be verified from any reachable source - IDOH's own Laws and Rules page still LISTS 410 IAC 7-22 and still serves the 2006 document, and the 2020 IDOH memo says only that it 'will be repealed'. Softened to what is provable. (4) MED: IC 16-42-5.4 (added by P.L.163-2026) creates a homestead-vendor category whose shipping and delivery right turns on holding an ANSI-accredited certificate - a 2026 statute the page did not reflect. (5) LOW: 410 IAC 7-26-135 gives a SECOND route to demonstrating knowledge for establishments exempt from IC 16-42-5.2, 410 IAC 7-26-134 requires a person in charge present all hours, and 16-42-5.2-8(b) lets a variance require the CFPM present all hours. EVERY quoted exemption in IC 16-42-5.2-2, -3 and -3.5 verified VERBATIM, word for word.
• 2026-08-05 — az-hvac — exemptions + legal basis[A.R.S. 32-1121] (medium)
  az-hvac stated categorically that A.R.S. 32-1121 subsection (A) lists 18 exemptions and quoted (A)(18) (cable/satellite/telecom), citing only /ars/32/01121.htm. Arizona publishes TWO concurrent official texts: the Ch. 140 text (HB 2181) runs (A) to paragraph 18 and has no subsection (E); the Ch. 145 text (SB 1397 sec. 5, listed on the Title 32 TOC as '32-1121; Version 2') ends (A) at paragraph 17, has no telecom exemption, and adds subsection (E) on joint ventures. Both were approved by the Governor on the SAME DAY, April 29 2019; neither act carries a conditional or effective-date clause; Arizona has no statutory tie-breaker and A.R.S. 41-1304.02 bars Legislative Council from blending them. LOW rather than HIGH because every operative HVAC proposition is version-invariant: (A)(11) is verbatim identical, (A)(14) is the same in substance, and subsection (D) - the page's central point, that gas-connection work defeats the $1,000 exemption - is effectively identical in both. No reader was misled about anything actionable. az-electrician was checked and is SAFE (it renders no exemption enumeration); az-contractor's existing dual-text disclosure was independently re-verified and is correct.
• 2026-08-03 — nm-food-handler — legal basis (+ provenance notes framing) (medium)
  Page said the rule became effective Jan 1, 2026 and the card requirement ~Apr 1, 2026. The in-force rule is effective Dec 1, 2018 and the card duty has applied since Mar 1, 2019 (D(1)(h) three-month trigger) — a seven-year error in the requirement's history. The substantive card facts (who/30-day/3-year/E2659-09/exemptions) were correct throughout because the proposal mirrored the in-force text.
• 2026-08-03 — nm-food-handler — source url + source urls[0] (medium)
  Primary source url and first citation pointed at the EIB 25-32(R) proposal redline PDF labeled 'Official amended 7.6.2 NMAC (NM Environment Dept, eff. Jan 1 2026)' — a petition attachment, not adopted law. Also a monitoring hole: a static proposal PDF can never signal that the underlying rule changed.
• 2026-08-01 — sc-food-handler — exemptions (+ mandate detail, who must get, faq, legal basis) (medium)
  Reg 61-25 Sec. 9-8(J)(1) — 'Temporary food service establishments are exempt from the requirements for training certification in 2-102.12(B)' — was absent from the record: the page stated the person-in-charge certification duty categorically, so a temporary-event operator (fair/carnival/up-to-14-day event) would read that their PIC needs a food handler certificate or CFPM when the regulation exempts them. The exemption sits in the record's OWN cited source (2024 digital edition, p.104, 'read in full' per the record's provenance notes) and in the SC Legislature compilation (p.120).
• 2026-08-01 — mt-electrician — legal basis[3].citation + requirements[6].value (medium)
  The 'substantially equivalent' reciprocity standard was cited as MCA 37-1-307 in two fields. 37-1-307 is 'Board authority' (subpoenas, screening panels) and contains no substantial-equivalence language; the standard lives in MCA 37-1-304 'Licensure by endorsement -- reciprocity' (verified at mca.legmt.gov, 4 occurrences of the phrase). The substantive reciprocity claim on the page was correct; its statutory pinpoint was wrong.
• 2026-08-01 — nc-electrician — legal basis[0].url + label (medium)
  ncbeec.org/laws-rules/gs-87-4/ — cited as the electrical licensing law — now serves G.S. 93B-15.3 (licensure recognition for neighboring-state licensees), a different statute from a different chapter, at returned the page. The board reused or broke the slug, so the citation silently stopped supporting its claim. Compounding label defect: 'G.S. 87-4' was never the electrical law (Sec. 87-4 is a General Contractors provision; the board's slug meant Chapter 87 ARTICLE 4).

July 2026

• 2026-07-29 — ga-electrician — exemptions (high)
  The page stated flatly that under 43-14-19(c)(3) 'interior wiring is expressly NOT exempt and must be done by an electrical contractor.' SB 553 (2026), effective July 1 2026, added a proviso to that exact subsection: a tier 2 local exchange company (O.C.G.A. 46-5-162) 'may perform low-voltage interior wiring without licensure as an electrical contractor solely to the extent such wiring is necessary for the installation, maintenance, repair, or operation of its own telecommunications systems and network infrastructure,' by its own employees only and excluding general electrical service work. Confirmed NEW in SB 553 by diffing SB 125's text of the same subsection, which ends at 'except as otherwise provided by law' with no proviso. Readers in that industry were told a license was required where the statute now says otherwise.
• 2026-07-29 — ga-electrician — exemptions (statutory currency + section map) (medium)
  The page named SB 125 (2025) as the act governing chapter 43-14 and asserted in the PRESENT TENSE that 'former 43-14-9, display of licenses, now occupies the 43-14-13 number.' Both were true under SB 125 and false from July 1 2026: SB 553 repealed and re-enacted the chapter, display of licenses is now 43-14-18, and 43-14-13 is now the plumbing-contractor licensing section. The page was re-verified 2026-07-22, three weeks AFTER SB 553 took effect, but re-verified against the SB 125 act PDF it already cited -- so the audit confirmed the record against a superseded act and reported no finding.
• 2026-07-29 — ga-hvac — ce hours / legal basis (medium)
  The page asserted as settled law that 'continuing education is not required of any licensed conditioned air contractor who is a registered professional engineer (r. 121-4-.03(8), citing O.C.G.A. 43-14-6(d)(5))', and a legal basis label repeated it. Chapter 43-14 as re-enacted by SB 553 contains no such provision: 43-14-6 is now the Division of Electrical Contractors' qualification section, and the chapter's continuing-education provisions authorise each division to require CE with no professional-engineer exemption anywhere (a full-text search of the signed act returns zero hits for a PE CE carve-out, and zero for '1983'). The Board rule still publishes the exemption and still cites the dead subsection. Now stated as a conflict with both sides attributed, rather than as statute.
• 2026-07-29 — ga-electrician, ga-hvac — freshness monitor (source coverage) (high)
  An entire statutory chapter governing two live pages was REPEALED AND RE-ENACTED on July 1 2026 and the freshness layer emitted no signal whatsoever. Cause: Georgia's O.C.G.A. is published through LexisNexis behind a reCAPTCHA (advance.lexis.com/RobotValidation), so the statute text is unfetchable and therefore unmonitored -- ga-hvac's legal basis cites lexisnexis.com/hottopics/gacode, a URL whose content we cannot diff. The Board's rule pages ARE monitored and did NOT change, because the Board has not conformed its rules to the new chapter. So every monitored source looked healthy while the underlying law was replaced, and the Jul-22 full-corpus audit passed both pages three weeks after the new chapter took effect.
• 2026-07-28 — in-hvac — legal basis / source urls (medium)
  Both IC 36-1-22-5 and IC 36-1-22-6 citations pointed at iga.in.gov/laws/2024/ic/titles/36/articles/1/chapters/22/sections/<sec> - a URL scheme Indiana retired. Every variant tested hard-404s in a real browser (2024, 2026 and /laws/current/ all redirect to iga.in.gov/404), so live readers clicking the statute behind Indiana's local-licensing preemption landed on a 404. NO FACTUAL DEFECT: the statute text was re-read verbatim from the official 2026 export and matches our quotes exactly, still 'As added by P.L.218-2014, SEC.20' (unamended). Repointed both to https://iga.in.gov/ic/2026/Title_36.html - the General Assembly's own static Title 36 export, which serves the full verbatim text to an automated reader (so it is also monitorable, unlike the SPA).
• 2026-07-28 — me-alcohol-server — source url / approved provider rule / cost range / issuing authority / coverage notes (low)
  NOT LIVE-FACING - the published page was correct and was verified so today (live page shows Learn2Serve + RTO and no 'The Maine Course'). But the Jul-18/22 BABLO repair landed in processed ONLY: data/raw/alcohol-server/me.json still carried the retired 403 URL as its primary source url plus the RETIRED provider list (naming 'The Maine Course', which BABLO no longer certifies, and missing Learn2Serve and RTO). Any future raw->processed merge would have re-published retired provider facts. Raw aligned to the verified processed record on source url, source urls, approved provider rule, cost range, issuing authority and last verified. Additionally the record's coverage notes - a SUMMARY field - still carried the retired provider list in BOTH raw and processed (the Jul-22 repair fixed the detail fields and missed the summary); corrected in both, with the delisting stated explicitly.
• 2026-07-28 — in-hvac, dc-hvac, me-alcohol-server — freshness monitor (fingerprint_sources.denial_page) (medium)
  The Jul-27 sweep's first-contact wave BASELINED THREE NON-CONTENT BODIES as source text: two iga.in.gov soft-404s (562 chars each, 'Uh oh! Page not found' served at returned the page) and the DC Access DC/Okta login shell at govservices.dcra.dc.gov/oplanewlicense (530 chars, incl. transient 'The page has timed out'). All three were above MIN_TEXT and matched no existing denial phrase, so every future sweep would have reported them 'unchanged' forever - a stable hash on a 404 is indistinguishable from a stable hash on a statute. This is the third occurrence of the class (ME BABLO auth wall Jul 18; WV FBI honeypot Jul 22). denial_page() extended with soft-404 and login-wall patterns; regression-tested at 4/4 caught on the real stored bodies and 0 false positives across the other 1,540 snapshots.
• 2026-07-27 — mo-food-handler — source_url/source_urls (medium)
  DHSS restructured health.mo.gov (July 2026): the Food Safety FAQ (the record PRIMARY source url), the Retail Food Safety Training page, and the Missouri Food Code PDF path all 404. Food Code PDF relocated to /sites/health/files/media/pdf/2025/11/missourifoodcode_0.pdf - confirmed the same June 3, 2013 publication, 2-102.11 three demonstration-of-knowledge paths present, still no 2-102.12 CFPM mandate (re-read 2026-07-27). FAQ/Training pages have no equivalents in the new /business-professionals/food-safety tree; facts re-anchored to the Food Code itself, primary source url moved to the Food Code PDF, hub cited as the agency front door.
• 2026-07-27 — wa-hvac — application url (low)
  L&I retired /licensing-permits/electrical/getting-an-electrical-license-certification-and-permit (wa-hvac application url) - readers clicking apply-here landed on a 404. Repointed to the live Electrical Licensing, Exams & Education hub (verified live 2026-07-27). Page facts unchanged.
• 2026-07-27 — id-food-handler — exemptions (medium)
  Idaho SB 1283 (2026 ch. 91, signed and effective March 20, 2026) enacted the Direct-to-Consumer Commerce Act (Title 37 ch. 2) which replaces and supersedes the IDAPA 16.02.19 cottage-food rule, and its sec. 9 amended Idaho Code 39-1602 so the exclusion list no longer names cottage food operations. Our exemptions block still stated the old rule condition (label/placard, non-TCS only) and claimed 39-1602(2) states the same exclusions - stale since 3/20/2026, four months before detection. Rewritten: act scope (homemade incl. perishable within 41F/135F limits), 37-205 disclosure requirements quoted verbatim, 37-204 limits (no use as food-establishment ingredients; dairy/raw-milk excepted), IDAPA text lag attributed. Also found while repairing: raw id.json had drifted from the audited processed record (reversed CFPM claims in legal_basis/who_must_get + IDAPA source label, pre-enum mandate level) - raw aligned to processed.
• 2026-07-25 — ut-hvac — board_url/application_url/source_urls (medium)
  board url, application url and the cited DOPL source all pointed at https://dopl.utah.gov/contractor/, which now 302s (behind Turnstile) to https://commerce.utah.gov/dopl/contractor/ - a 404. DOPL migrated its site to commerce.utah.gov/dopl/ and the mechanical redirect does not map the old path to the new Contracting page. Readers clicking the page-s primary board link landed on a 404. Repointed all three to https://commerce.utah.gov/dopl/contracting/ (verified live in a real browser). No automated check could catch this: both domains serve 403/Turnstile to every automated client, so the link rot was invisible to the link gate and the fingerprint sweep alike. Same session, the fee gap the wall had forced was closed from the live schedule: HVAC Contractor $175.00 application / $128.00 renewal + EL-01 $1.00 e-library surcharge.
• 2026-07-23 — la-alcohol-server — exemptions (medium)
  The exemptions field stated 'all security personnel must hold the permit', omitting La. R.S. 26:932(5), which narrows the definition: "'Security personnel' shall not include persons employed by hotels or motels which consist of sleeping rooms, cottages or cabins unless the person works primarily in an area on the licensed premises of a hotel or motel where the principal commodity sold is alcoholic beverages for consumption on the licensed premises." Hotel/motel lodging-area security workers fall OUTSIDE the definition and need no server/security permit -- the page told them (as 'all security personnel') that they must hold one. Re-verified verbatim at legis.la.gov against the live source (the site refuses automated requests). Added the carve-out and de-overstated 'all'. Also closed a gotcha-#51 landmine surfaced here: 7 alcohol-server raw files (ar/in/ks/la/me/mo/va) lacked the exemptions field entirely (Jul-18 backfill went to processed only); our build pipeline rebuilds processed from raw wholesale, so a cert merge would have dropped exemptions on all 7. Synced processed->raw; alcohol-server raw now 51/51.
• 2026-07-23 — va-hvac — exemptions (low)
  The Va. Code 54.1-1101(A) exemption enumeration listed (1),(2)-(4),(6),(7) and silently skipped subsection (5): 'Any other persons who may be specifically excluded by other laws but only to such an extent as such laws provide.' A residual pointer to other laws, not an HVAC-specific carve-out, so no worker is told they need a credential they don't -> LOW. Re-verified verbatim at law.lis.virginia.gov via WebFetch. Inserted (5) between (4) and (6); processed+raw parity.
• 2026-07-23 — nj-food-handler — exemptions (medium)
  The 'retail food establishment does not include' list (N.J.A.C. 8:24-1.5) omitted two branches: item 4 (an area where the bake-sale food is sold/offered) and the FAMILY CHILD-CARE HOME half of item 5 -- the field kept only the bed-and-breakfast half of the same 'or' clause. A 'kitchen in a private home, such as a family child-care home (as defined at N.J.A.C. 10:126-1.2)' is expressly excluded from 'retail food establishment', so Chapter 24 personnel/CFPM duties do not attach; a family child-care provider reading the page was not told they fall outside the regulated category. Added both branches. Verification: WebFetch could not parse the binary NJ DOH PDF; the agent's verbatim 6-item quote is corroborated by the field's existing text (items 1,2,3,5b,6 matched exactly), and the fix ADDS a true carve-out (safe direction). processed+raw parity.
• 2026-07-23 — al-food-handler — exemptions (low)
  Rule 420-3-22-.12(2)(a) temporary-event exemption stated 2 of its 3 provisos; omitted proviso 3 (foods meet the (2)(d) restriction: no low-acid hermetically-sealed containers, no non-permitted home-canned goods). Added verbatim.
• 2026-07-23 — ks-food-handler — exemptions (low)
  K.S.A. 65-689(d) has 14 license-exemption classes; field listed 13, omitted (d)(1) (a facility already registered/licensed by the KS Dept of Agriculture under art. 7 or 6a of ch. 65 needs no separate food-establishment license). Added verbatim.
• 2026-07-23 — mi-food-handler — exemptions (low)
  MCL 289.4105(1) runs (a)-(n); field omitted (m) (food warehouse/processor handling only uncut produce meeting criteria) and (n) (individual operating under 1978 PA 260, Business Enterprise Program). Added.
• 2026-07-23 — sd-food-handler — exemptions (low)
  SDCL 34-18-17 exempts a business offering food at no cost <=3 times/calendar year and <=3 consecutive days for a grand opening/promotion/product showing from the licensing + fee provisions — not listed. Added verbatim.
• 2026-07-23 — ak-food-handler — exemptions (low)
  The 18 AAC 31.012 facility-exemption list (explicitly non-exhaustive 'These include:') omitted verified carve-outs of the current section (Register 254; (a) repealed 5/11/2025): (c)(9) bake sale, (c)(10) federal-oversight establishments (national park/military/PHS hospital), (c)(7) public open house with commercially-processed appetizers, (b)(3) packaging/sale of raw whole vegetables-herbs-microgreens-fruit, (b)(6)(D) snacks at a licensed childcare facility, and the (c)(1)(F) beverages item. Also missing: the (d)/(e)/(f) partial-exemption boundary — (e) keeps 18 AAC 31.050+.320-.330 (the CARD provisions) applicable at ongoing camp food services <=24/day, so only the <=14-day camp in (b)(6)(E) is fully outside the chapter. Enumeration completed verbatim from BASIS; addition of true text, no deletion.
• 2026-07-23 — tx-hvac — exemptions (low)
  Field framed Subchapter B as secs. 1302.052-1302.063 and omitted Sec. 1302.064 (Technology Integration, added 2013): ch. 1702 security or ch. 6002 Insurance Code licensees selling/designing burglar/fire-alarm products integrated with an A/C system (no installation) are outside the whole chapter. An alarm/insurance-licensed seller of integrated systems was told, by omission, they need an ACR license they do not. Verbatim-verified at statutes.capitol.texas.gov (the .htm is now an Angular SPA — a rendering proxy renders it).
• 2026-07-23 — ga-electrician — exemptions (medium)
  Field walked post-SB-125 O.C.G.A. 43-14-19(c)(1)-(5) as the complete not-apply list; (c) runs to (8), and (c)(8)(A) is an ELECTRICAL carve-out: state-fire-marshal-licensed manufactured/mobile-home installers coupling the electrical connection from the exterior service entrance panel to the interior distribution panel board. A qualifying installer was told, by omission, they need an electrical contractor license for that work. Verbatim-verified in the Governor-signed SB 125 (2025) act PDF (our fetcher clears gov.georgia.gov).
• 2026-07-23 — ky-electrician — exemptions (medium)
  Field affirmatively claimed KRS 227A.030 is "a single exemption section" — false: KRS 227A.150 is a second, standalone applicability limitation exempting low-voltage, power-limited installations (Class 2/3 transformer) installed by a low-voltage installer certificate holder from the ENTIRE licensing law. A certificate holder was told, by omission plus the false completeness claim, they may need a full electrician license they do not. Verbatim-verified at apps.legislature.ky.gov (against the live source).
• 2026-07-23 — id-electrician — exemptions (low)
  Field enumerated Idaho Code 54-1016 (1),(2),(3),(6),(7) and silently skipped (4) — a DOPL plumbing/HVAC installation permit covering an electrical portion satisfies this chapter's permitting and inspection requirements (permit-coordination relief for HVAC/plumbing licensees) — and (5), the industrial-machinery product approval-and-certification exemption (added WITH its "unless the board has determined... undue hazard" limitation per a known pipeline trap). Verbatim-verified at legislature.idaho.gov (against the live source).
• 2026-07-23 — ca-hvac — exemptions (low)
  Field called BPC 7044(a) "three variants" and enumerated (a)(1)-(a)(3), omitting (a)(4): a nonprofit corporation providing assistance to an owner-builder (H&S Code 50692(a)) participating in a mutual self-help housing program (H&S Code 50078). Narrow but real carve-out; the false "three" count was also a completeness claim. Verbatim-verified at leginfo.legislature.ca.gov (our fetcher).
• 2026-07-22 — tn-alcohol-server — who must get (high)
  The page told a reader the certified alcohol-awareness program is a 'minimum 3.5 hours' and credited that figure to Tenn. Comp. R. & Regs. 0100-08-.04(1)(d)1. Re-fetched the rule PDF: .04(1)(d)1 reads 'Complete training program must be at least five (5) hours of classroom instruction, excluding breaks for attendees', and .02(7) defines successful completion as having 'attended five (5) hours of classroom instruction'. The rule says FIVE in both places. 3.5 is the STATUTORY floor in T.C.A. Sec. 57-3-704, not the rule's figure. A reader planning 3.5 hours under-plans by 43% for a class every certified program must run at five hours. TABC's own server-permit page states no hours figure at all, so this was never a two-source conflict - it was one number attached to the wrong source. Both tiers are now stated and attributed, and the source label corrected.
• 2026-07-22 — fl-electrician, ga-electrician, la-electrician, mo-electrician, ms-electrician, nc-electrician, nv-electrician, oh-electrician, ca-hvac, fl-hvac, ga-hvac, mi-hvac, nc-hvac, oh-hvac — body_lede (medium)
  On all 14 credential holder=contractor pages the body lede spliced the crawl-map `occupation` category into 'administers {occupation} licensing in {state}'. The 6 HVAC pages (ca/fl/ga/mi/nc/oh) therefore read 'administers HVAC TECHNICIAN licensing' -- a live false characterization: CSLB/LARA license the electrical/mechanical CONTRACTOR, not individual HVAC technicians (no such state license exists). The 8 electrician pages (fl/ga/la/mo/ms/nc/nv/oh) read 'administers electrician licensing' -- imprecise for states whose own board licenses electrical contractors, not electricians (Georgia's board FAQ: 'the Board licenses Electrical Contractors, not electricians'). Mitigated on every page by the title/H1 ('<State> Electrical/HVAC Contractor License'), the description ('licenses the contractor... not individual electricians/technicians'), and the What-it's-called + exemptions blocks -- so a whole-page reader was not misled, but a lede-only snippet (e.g. an AI extract) was. Titles/H1s were already contractor-framed; the lede was the last residual of this class.
• 2026-07-22 — hi-food-handler — also known as (medium)
  The CRITICAL also known as field mischaracterized Hawaii's person-in-charge food-protection certification as 'a manager-level credential' / 'the person-in-charge / food-manager certification' — positively FALSE and self-contradictory: the same record's who must get and the record's provenance notes correctly state Hawaii requires only a food-HANDLER-level certification for the PIC and EXPRESSLY DECLINED to adopt the FDA 2022 Model Food Code's Certified Food Protection Manager (CFPM) requirement. Re-verified verbatim at the live DOH source (health.hawaii.gov/san/files/2025/09/Food-Code-Changes-08242025-1.pdf): 'the FSB is not adopting this requirement ... through the mandatory Food Handlers Education Certification for all PIC's.' The manager-conflation error is exactly the confusion the rest of the page rebuts and could push a Hawaii reader to buy an unnecessary ServSafe Manager course. Fixed: also known as reworded to food-handler-level, NOT manager (processed+raw parity); regenerated; gate 162/0/0, health OK 227, live-verified.
• 2026-07-22 — ne-food-handler — also known as (low)
  The CRITICAL also known as field said the employee food handler card 'is required only in Lincoln-Lancaster County' — the word 'only' is FALSE: the City of Omaha/Douglas County added a mandate via an Aug. 26, 2025 Omaha Municipal Code update (all food handlers must obtain a DCHD Food Handler's Certification within 30 days of employment). Internal-consistency defect: the same record's mandate detail, who must get and county exceptions already correctly cover BOTH jurisdictions, so no reader was told they lack a required credential (hence LOW); only the naming blurb understated it. Re-verified verbatim at the live DCHD source (douglascountyhealth.com/food-handler-training-and-certifications, against the live source — the site refuses requests from our location): 'all food handlers in the City of Omaha must obtain a Food Handler's Certification within 30 days of employment.' Fixed: also known as reworded to name both jurisdictions (processed+raw parity); regenerated; gate/health green, live-verified.
• 2026-07-22 — ia-alcohol-server — also known as (medium)
  The also known as blurb credited I-PACT to 'the Alcoholic Beverages Division's brand' in present tense, but the record's OWN issuing authority states that division no longer exists -- dissolved by the 2023 State Government Alignment Act (2023 Iowa Acts, ch. 19), duties moved to the Iowa Department of Revenue. Self-contradiction within the record; also confirmed live at revenue.iowa.gov (I-PACT administered by the Dept of Revenue, no ABD attribution). Fixed to 'the Iowa Department of Revenue's brand' (processed+raw parity), regenerated, gate 162/0/0, health OK 227, live-verified.
• 2026-07-22 — vt-alcohol-server — also known as (medium)
  The also known as blurb said Vermont 'issues an alcohol server training card' and the server 'holds the training card' -- but the record's issuing_authority/mandate_detail state VT issues NO government card: 7 V.S.A. s.213 training is documented by the Division's certificate and the licensee's signed written records. Internal contradiction (re-introduced a 'card' framing the Jul-12 state-mandated reclassification had removed). Reworded to the training-requirement framing, adding 'alcohol server card' to the folk-term list (what searchers type) while stating no government card exists. processed+raw parity, regenerated, gate/health green, live-verified.
• 2026-07-22 — sc-electrician — also known as (medium)
  The also known as blurb listed 'journeyman electrician license' and 'master electrician license' as informal names for South Carolina's individual STATE credential -- but the record's the record's coverage notes states SC has NO single generic journeyman/master electrician license: the individual state credential is the Residential Electrician License (SC Residential Builders Commission), and a 'Master Electrician' in SC is a separate PRIVATE trade certification (MASC through Dec 2025, then Carolinas AGC), an exam-waiver path, NOT a state license. The blurb conflated the private cert with the state license, contradicting the record. Reworded (individual-hold framing kept, Residential Electrician License named, private Master cert distinguished); processed+raw parity, regenerated, gate/health green, live-verified. (Auditor mis-cited a field name; verifier reproduced the contradiction against the real the record's coverage notes, and I confirmed the full record before rewriting.)
• 2026-07-22 — va-electrician — license types (low)
  The license-types experience citation dated the A501-2710EXLIC application form 'v8 08/01/2025' while the fee and FAQ sections of the SAME page (correctly) dated the same form 'v8 07/01/2026' -- the page self-contradicted on one form's version date. Live PDF footer confirms v8, dated 07/01/2026 (08/01/2025 was the prior v7 edition). Metadata-only inconsistency, no substantive fact wrong -> LOW. Fixed the label to 07/01/2026. SEPARATELY closed a larger latent parity landmine surfaced by the fix : data/raw/electrician/va.json was fully stale on the VA form -- pre-v8 fees ($150 base + $7.25 separate, v7 08/01/2025) while processed correctly carried the v8 combined totals ($171.75 exam/reciprocity/apprenticeship; $131.75 card exchange, the live-form values from the Jul-11 re-verify). A merge would have reverted the live $171.75 money fact to the stale $150. Synced raw fees/license_types/the record's coverage notes to processed's v8 values.
• 2026-07-22 — or-alcohol-server — exemptions (medium)
  The exemptions field quoted OAR 845-009-0010(2)(a) with quotation marks but TRUNCATED the quote at 'airlines and most trains)', dropping the rule's OWN limitation in the same sentence: the service-permit waiver 'does not waive the requirement for Public Passenger Carriers whose primary business is touring (for example tour boats in Oregon waters more than 30 days per calendar year and small excursion-type railroads).' The truncation told alcohol servers on touring carriers (tour boats, excursion railroads) they were EXEMPT when they must hold an OLCC service permit -- a wrong answer produced by cutting a true quote short. 5 batched audit waves missed it; the completeness-critic's full-statute read caught it. Re-verified verbatim at the live OAR rule via WebFetch (a rendering proxy + apify-browser were Imperva-walled). Fixed by extending the verbatim quote to include the limitation; processed+raw parity.
• 2026-07-22 — fl-electrician — exemptions (low)
  The Fla. Stat. 489.503 exemption prose enumerated subsections (1),(2),(4),(5),(6),(7)-(24) but SKIPPED (3), the court-appointed-officer carve-out: 'An officer appointed by a court when he or she is acting within the scope of his or her office as defined by law or court order.' A genuine enumerated statutory exemption omitted. Materiality is minimal (a court-appointed receiver/officer is not an audience a credential-seeker mistakes themselves for), hence LOW, but completeness of an enumerated carve-out list is the standard. Inserted between (2) and (4); re-verified verbatim at leg.state.fl.us 489.503(3) via WebFetch; processed+raw parity.
• 2026-07-20 — ne-electrician — renewal cycle / faq (high)
  Page stated the pre-LB 889 late-renewal scheme (renew up to 3 months after expiration at +10%/month, then re-take exam) sourced from the board's License Renewal page. LB 889 (adopted Apr 18 2026, effective Jul 18 2026) amended Neb. Rev. Stat. 81-2118: renewal Oct 1-Nov 30 of even years; late renewal Dec 1-31 at +10% flat; expired = new license/registration, no grace. NOT an authoring error: page faithfully mirrored the board page, which itself is still stale post-amendment (conflict now attributed on our page). Lag law-effective->fixed: 2 days.
• 2026-07-20 — ne-electrician — exemptions (medium)
  LB 889 added a family exemption at Neb. Rev. Stat. 81-2143(2) (unlicensed electrical work for parent, stepparent, spouse, descendant, grandparent, sibling, cousin, uncle, aunt - incl. half blood/adoption/marriage), effective Jul 18 2026. The exemptions field (researched Jul 19, one day AFTER effect) omitted it - research read 81-2121/81-2108 but not 81-2143 as amended. Now appended with the LB 889 PDF as the verifying source (9th quote, mechanically verified).
• 2026-07-19 — il-food-handler — who must get / legal basis / exemptions (medium)
  Page anchored the CFPM establishment-supervision mandate on '77 Ill. Adm. Code 750.540 (Management Sanitation Training and Certification)' -- a section repealed with the ENTIRE former Part 750 effective Dec 7, 2018 (42 Ill. Reg. 24242; new FOOD CODE Part adopted at 42 Ill. Reg. 24245). Current Part 750 (last amended 48 Ill. Reg. 5339, eff. Mar 22, 2024) has no 750.540; the operative anchor is 750.115(b), which incorporates the FDA 2022 Food Code incl. Chapter 2 -- Section 2-102.12(A) (person in charge shall be a CFPM). The substantive fact was correct; the legal anchor was dead law imported verbatim from IDPH's own CFPM page, which still cites the repealed section.
• 2026-07-18 — me-alcohol-server — exemptions (low)
  exemptions was null — the last open state of the fl/me/ct gap (fl and ct were closed in the Jul-12 wave-2 cycle). Bangor's ordinance scope now enumerated from the article text (§§ 61-29 to 61-31, Ord. 18-150): mandate reaches only service under an on-premises-consumption license (off-premises store sales outside it entirely), 90-day new-hire completion window, caterers expressly NOT exempt (§ 61-30 records at principal place of business), no other carve-outs in the article, sanction runs against the liquor license (denial under 28-A M.R.S.A. § 653(2)(G)). Statewide there is no credential to be exempt from.
• 2026-07-18 — me-alcohol-server — approved provider rule / cost range (medium)
  Page listed 'The Maine Course' as a BABLO-certified program; BABLO's CURRENT certified seller/server list (Alcohol Education page — hash-stable since Jul-11 per the fingerprint index, content re-read Jul-18) no longer includes it, and the page omitted two programs that ARE on the current list: Learn2Serve Maine On-Premises Alcohol Seller-Server (360training) and RTO (Ready Training Online) Maine Alcohol Sales Off Premises. The Nov-2025 archived copy of the retired Certified Training Programs page still carried The Maine Course (plus ServeTrain and ABC Server Training) — the record was built from that older list. Provider list synced to the live page; $28 B.A.S.I.C. fee re-verified verbatim in 28-A § 2519(5) same session.
• 2026-07-18 — me-alcohol-server — source url / source urls (medium)
  Primary source url (maine.gov/dafs/bablo/liquor-licensing/certified-training-programs) serves 'You are not authorized to access this page' to the public — confirmed from BOTH a residential-egress headless render AND the US-egress runner's Jul-16 snapshot (719-char error body). The fingerprint monitor had BASELINED the error page as if it were content, so it would report 'unchanged' forever. Primary source repointed to the live BABLO Alcohol Education page (which carries the current certified-program list and the $28 B.A.S.I.C. fee); the dead entry removed from source urls.
• 2026-07-17 — ca-food-handler — who_must_get/exemptions/legal_basis (high)
  Page covered ONLY the HSC 113948 food handler card and never mentioned California's separate establishment-level mandate: HSC 113947.1 'There shall be at least one food safety certified owner or employee at each food facility' (certificate on file at all times; 5-year recertification; temporary-facility and non-PHF-demonstration exemptions). CDPH's Retail Food Safety Training fact sheet states the two credentials are distinct. Verified in-session from leginfo + the CDPH PDF.
• 2026-07-17 — ut-food-handler — who_must_get/exemptions/legal_basis (medium)
  Page mentioned the certified food safety manager ONLY as an exemption route from the handler permit (R392-103-4(15)) -- never as Utah's own independent per-establishment mandate. R392-100-4 incorporates the 2022 FDA Food Code (+ Dec 2024 Supplement) and AMENDS Food Code 2-102.12(A): at least one certified food safety manager per establishment (Utah Code 26B-7-412 + R392-101). Also adds 2-102.13 (food employee training -> 26B-7-413/R392-103). Rule read in full in-session against the live source on the official adminrules.utah.gov URL.
• 2026-07-17 — wa-food-handler — who_must_get/exemptions/legal_basis (high)
  Page covered only the individual food worker card and omitted WAC 246-215-02107 ('Certified food protection manager (FDA Food Code 2-102.12)'): since March 1, 2023 every food establishment must have at least one CFPM on staff (certificate available on request; 60-day replacement window; minimal-risk carve-out at (2)). Operative for 3+ years while the live page said nothing. WA requires BOTH the worker card AND the establishment CFPM. WAC fetched verbatim in-session from app.leg.wa.gov (WSR 21-01-122).
• 2026-07-17 — tx-food-handler — who_must_get/exemptions/legal_basis (high)
  Page quoted 25 TAC 228.31(d) (handler training) and used the CFPM as an exemption category -- while omitting subsections (a)-(c) of the SAME SECTION: the food manager certificate posting duty, the mandate that a CFPM 'shall be present at the food establishment during all hours of operation' (per Food Code 2-101.11 and 2-102.12), and the (c) minimal-risk exemption list. Read verbatim in-session from DSHS's consolidated TFER-2021 PDF (the official TAC viewer is JS-walled to every $0 ladder rung).
• 2026-07-17 — or-food-handler — who_must_get/legal_basis (low)
  Page's 'no manager mandate' framing is CORRECT for current enforcement (OHA: certification 'is not required by law in Oregon' today), but Oregon has already CODIFIED a phased CFPM mandate in the food sanitation rules (rule text eff. Jan 1, 2026): at least one CFPM per establishment by Jan 1, 2029; a CFPM person-in-charge each day, present during highest-risk hours, by Jan 1, 2031. Forward note added; both phase dates banked as tripwires. OHA program page fetched in-session.
• 2026-07-17 — il-food-handler — who_must_get/exemptions/legal_basis (medium)
  Page framed the CFPM purely as the exemption category from Illinois's handler-training mandate (410 ILCS 625) and never stated the freestanding establishment requirement: IDPH -- 'In Illinois, food establishments are required to be under the supervision of a certified food protection manager in accordance with the state Food Code and adopted FDA Food Code' (77 Ill. Adm. Code 750.540). IDPH statement fetched verbatim in-session; rule text itself unread (ilga.gov refuses this egress AND the cloud fetcher; 2018 Wayback snapshot predates current Part 750, not used). Stated on IDPH's authority with the citation; follow-up queued to pull 750.540 verbatim via US-egress runner.
• 2026-07-17 — az-electrician — explanation (medium)
  Body prose swapped the ROC classification scopes ('CR-11 (residential), C-11 (commercial), R-11 (electrical)') against the page's own license types and ROC's fee schedule (Specialty Dual CR / Commercial C / Residential R, verified live). Prose aligned to CR-11=dual, C-11=commercial, R-11=residential.
• 2026-07-17 — in-electrician — faq/licensing_level (low)
  FAQ + frontmatter said licensing is 'municipal (city) level' while the body's own examples are a city (Lafayette) AND a county (Monroe County board). licensing level municipal -> county/municipal; title/description regenerated to 'County & City Rules'.
• 2026-07-17 — dc-electrician — requirements[Reciprocity - Journeyman] (medium)
  Journeyman reciprocity stated as 'Virginia only' (from the application PDF) while DLCP's live Industrial Trades page says journeymen licensed in Maryland OR Virginia are eligible. Both sources re-checked 2026-07-17 and still conflict; page now states both with attribution (house rule: never resolve an official-source conflict silently).
• 2026-07-17 — ca-electrician — exam / license types[].exam (medium)
  All five exam time allowances were stale after the Jun-1-2026 exam-structure change: General is 4h30 (page said 4h), Residential 3h30 (3h), the three specialty exams 2h15 (2h). Read from DIR/DLSE's own time table (dir.ca.gov/dlse/ecu/ECU_TestInfo.htm, verified live).
• 2026-07-17 — tx-electrician — license types[Master].experience (medium)
  Master eligibility stated as 12,000 OJT hours alone; TDLR's application page adds a distinct gate -- 'you must have held Journeyman Electrician license for at least two years.' Both conditions now stated.
• 2026-07-17 — ut-electrician — ce hours / renewal cycle / fees (medium)
  Three defects: (1) CE said '12 of 16 hours must be NEC' -- DOPL: 12 must be CORE, of which 8 NEC + 4 NFPA 70E; (2) renewal notice said mailed/60-day -- DOPL now emails 90 days out, and a 2026-05-26 Wayback snapshot proves this is a BOARD-SIDE CHANGE the monitor missed (commerce.utah.gov is Cloudflare-gated to our fetcher/a rendering proxy -- unmonitored-hole class); (3) the $84 renewal arithmetic said $78+$5 (=$83) -- actual: $78 + $5 EE-02 + $1 EL-01 e-library surcharge, from the DOPL fee schedule's interactive table.
• 2026-07-17 — sd-electrician — description (medium)
  Meta description headlined '2,000 hours' as the journeyman requirement -- that is the per-year conversion factor (ARSD 20:44:16:06); the requirement is four years = 8,000 hours (20:44:16:08(1)). Root cause: HOURS_RE headlines the FIRST figure >=2000 in the journeyman experience string. Dataset string reordered so the true total leads; both facts preserved.
• 2026-07-17 — vt-electrician — description (medium)
  Meta description presented '8,000 hours' -- the MILITARY-reciprocal path figure -- as Vermont's general journeyman requirement; the standard path is a council-verified apprenticeship with no fixed hours (Board Rule 3.2(a), 2025 rules PDF). Military hour figures relocated (not deleted) to the Reciprocity requirement with their DD-214/12R conditions; description now numberless by design.
• 2026-07-17 — wy-electrician — renewal cycle (medium)
  Apprentice licenses were folded into the 3-year renewal cycle; the Fire Marshal's page states the apprentice year is ANNUAL (7/1-6/30, $20 renewal, $40 reinstatement past one year) and only Journeyman/Master/Technician are 3-year (wsfm.wyo.gov, verified live).
• 2026-07-17 — hi-electrician — license types[EJI].experience (low)
  Page framed the EJI 4yr/8,000hr figure as a form-vs-statute conflict; there is none -- HRS 448E-5(b)(8) (eff. Jul 1 2013, current) itself sets 4 years/8,000 hours + 200 coursework hours; only superseded subsection (a)(8) says 5yr/10,000hr. Note rewritten (capitol.hawaii.gov verified live).
• 2026-07-17 — ak-electrician — requirements/legal_basis (low)
  The 'limited exceptions' to the Certificate of Fitness were never enumerated; AS 18.62.010 verbatim exempts employees of an electric utility with no city/unified municipality over 2,500 population in its service area (reprinted in the 8 AAC 90 regs PDF the record already cited; the audit's could_not_verify resolved by a clean read of the live source). Exemption stated + legal basis entry added.
• 2026-07-17 — nm-electrician — renewal cycle / exam (low)
  (1) The 3-year term's pinpoint cite '(14.6.3.8 NMAC, Subsection H)' was DISPROVEN -- H is the military-expedited provision, and no subsection of 14.6.3.8 states a general term; NMSA 60-13-18(B)-(C) sets a 2-year default 'or as determined by the division.' Field now states both sourced facts and flags the unlocated term-setting authority (follow-up queued). (2) AUDIT MISREAD refuted: 'passing score valid one year' IS on CID's own apply page verbatim -- inline attribution added, sentence kept.
• 2026-07-16 — id-food-handler — who_must_get/exemptions/legal_basis (high)
  Page framed the establishment CFPM duty as 'one of three alternatives, not a mandate' and claimed FDA Food Code 2-102.12 'first appeared in the 2017 edition and Idaho has not adopted it'. FALSE: 2-102.12(A) is verbatim in the 2013 FDA Food Code (verified fda.gov/media/87140), IDAPA 16.02.19.002 adopts the 2013 code by reference, and the Idaho rule never strikes 2-102.12 (0 hits) -- so the CFPM mandate applies as adopted, confirmed by the DHW agency page. The page conflated 2-102.11 (PIC demonstration, 3 routes) with the separate 2-102.12 establishment CFPM mandate.
• 2026-07-16 — dc-food-handler — exemptions/legal_basis (medium)
  CFPM-for-vendors requirement pinpointed to 25-A DCMR 3700.2 (which governs operating with an expired license); the mandate is at 3700.4.
• 2026-07-16 — az-food-handler — validity_years/faq (medium)
  'Pima County cards also 3 yr' had no source; pima.gov/2053 states no validity term. Removed (source-or-silence); the headline 3-yr remains sourced to Maricopa Ch VII.
• 2026-07-16 — nh-food-handler — exemptions (medium)
  CFPM-exempt category list omitted Category F-7 (farm store), which He-P 2303.02(a) exempts (verified via gc.nh.gov snapshot).
• 2026-07-16 — in-food-handler — source urls labels (medium)
  source urls labels attributed the CFPM requirement to 410 IAC 7-22-15 / called it the 'operative rule' -- but that rule EXPIRED Jan 1 2022 (the body already cites the operative IC 16-42-5.2-8). Labels relabeled to the operative statute.
• 2026-07-16 — mt-food-handler — exemptions/legal_basis/provenance notes (medium)
  Temporary-food-establishment definition pinpointed to ARM 37.110.211(24); 211 is a Reserved (empty) rule -- the definition is at 37.110.261(24).
• 2026-07-16 — ga-food-handler — source urls label (low)
  CFSM definition cited to Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. r. 511-6-1-.02(16); the Definitions rule is .01(16).
• 2026-07-16 — al-food-handler — legal_basis/exemptions/source_urls (low)
  Definitions pinpointed to Ala. Admin. Code r. 420-3-22-.01(a); the definitions live under subsection (4)(a).
• 2026-07-16 — ma-food-handler — who_must_get/faq (low)
  105 CMR 590.002(A) strikes and replaces FC 2-101.11(A) (where the CFPM proficiency language lives); page cited 2-101.11(B).
• 2026-07-16 — nm-food-handler — county_exceptions/faq (low)
  ABQ implementing Rules stated 'effective Aug 18, 2024'; Aug 18 is when the Rules were PASSED, effective Aug 29, 2024 (cabq.gov).
• 2026-07-16 — nj-food-handler — county_exceptions/faq (low)
  Newark accepted-provider list read as exhaustive (Newark DOH/NRFSP/ServSafe) but omitted Thompson Prometric, an accepted provider (newarknj.gov).
• 2026-07-16 — sc-food-handler — source urls url (low)
  SC Dept of Agriculture retail-food URL 301-redirects (/divisions/consumer-protection/ -> /permits-and-inspections/).
• 2026-07-16 — tx-food-handler — legal basis (low)
  legal basis said subch D 'enacted via SB 1089, 84th Legislature, 2015'. SB 1089 is 85th Leg (2017) and amended 438.046; 438.041 dates to 1989.
• 2026-07-16 — wi-food-handler — legal_basis/source_urls (low)
  Wis. Stat. s. 97.33 catchline given as 'Certified food protection managers'; the official catchline is 'Certificate of food protection practices'. Also CFMRequirements.pdf label described a general requirements sheet; served doc is the small-operators sheet.
• 2026-07-16 — ky-food-handler — who_must_get/exemptions/legal_basis (high)
  CONFIRMED AND FIXED 2026-07-17 (wave-4 CFPM-incorporation wave; was SUSPECTED/held since wave-3). KY 902 KAR 45:005 sec. 9 incorporates the 2013 FDA Food Code, never mentions 2-102.12 (0 hits), and modifies only 2-102.11(B) -- so the establishment CFPM mandate of 2-102.12(A) applies AS ADOPTED, by the same analysis proven for Idaho. The page's 'no mandatory manager certificate / does not adopt 2-102.12' body was WRONG. Agency confirmation (the piece missing at wave-3) found: TWO Kentucky local health departments state the mandate verbatim -- Boyle County HD ('As per Boyle County Health Department and the FDA Food Code 2013 requirements, each establishment shall have a certified food protection manager who is able to direct and control food preparation and service', boylehealth.com/portfolio/food-certifications/) and Green River District HD (healthdepartment.org/food-certifications/, same statement + PIC during all operating hours). Triple-verified: 2013 code text (2-102.12(A) verbatim, fda.gov/media/87140), the KAR re-read live 2026-07-17, and the two agency pages. Record fields who must get / exemptions / legal basis / faq reversed; 2-102.12(B) minimal-risk carve-out stated; all true facts preserved (county card regimes, CFM exemption from county cards, B&B exemption, KRS 217.015 exclusions, Louisville nuance). NOTE: the false reading was introduced by the Jul-11 exemptions backfill, which 'corrected' a TRUE prior claim -- a deleted-true-fact defect exactly like a known pipeline trap.
• 2026-07-16 — ky-food-handler, (cluster-wide) — who_must_get/exemptions/legal_basis (high)
  CLASS SWEPT AND RETIRED 2026-07-17 (wave-4). Original finding: a state that adopts an FDA Food Code edition by reference and does not strike sec. 2-102.12 carries the establishment CFPM mandate as adopted (proven on Idaho, wave-3). The wave-4 sweep examined all 20 candidate pages -- every page asserting no/voluntary CFPM plus every page silent on manager certification. DEFECTS 8: id (wave-3), ky (D-B015), ca (C001), ut (C002), wa (C003), tx (C004), il (C006) fixed + or (C005) forward-note. CLEAN 12: md, mi, oh, ri (batch B), ga, la, sd (batch C), vt, wy, ks, ok, nj (batch A) -- each verified against live primary sources, several read end-to-end (KS: full 148-page code, no 2-102.12 exists in its numbering). Root cause across the class: the cluster's scrapers answered 'is a handler card required?' and never asked 'is any OTHER credential required?'. Prevention: the merge/spec for future cert clusters must carry an explicit 'other mandatory credentials at establishment level' probe.
• 2026-07-16 — (cluster-wide) — (various) (high)
  Electrician cluster audit (never-run) found 33 defects across 20 pages: 8 HIGH / 20 MED / 5 LOW. Repaired across the 2026-07-16/17 electrician repair waves; the cluster re-audited 50/51 clean on 2026-07-22. HIGH cluster: va-electrician (DPOR technology-fee tripwire FIRED — form v8 07/01/2026 publishes combined $171.75/$131.75; page shows stale $150), mt/mo (multi-option statutory pathways collapsed to one), al (missing owner-of-premises exemption 34-36-13), me (two board pages conflict on reciprocity). Notable: al/tn/sc descriptions falsely say 'licenses the contractor, not individual electricians' (all three license individuals). Each finding needs independent verification before repair (KY in wave-3 proved audits err). This is a MARKER; individual ledger entries get added as the repair wave verifies+fixes each.
• 2026-07-16 — va-electrician — fees / license types / description / faq (high)
  VA DPOR technology-fee tripwire FIRED (predicted in tripwires memory). The cited application form A501-2710EXLIC advanced from v7 (08/01/2025) to v8 (07/01/2026); v8 publishes combined totals with the $7.25/yr HB30 Technology Fee folded in. Page showed stale $150 journeyman + $150 master, an $110 card-exchange, and wrongly claimed 'DPOR does not publish a combined total'. FIXED to v8: $171.75 by examination/reciprocity/apprenticeship, $131.75 by card exchange, UNIFORM across journeyman AND master. NOTE: the audit's suggested fix ('Master = $131.75') was a MISREAD — it took the Card-Exchange method column for a Master trade row; DPOR's tradesman fee is method-based and uniform across level (the old page's equal $150/$150 confirmed uniformity). Verified against the LIVE v8 form (pdftotext -layout). Both fees are $171.75 (exam); $131.75 is card-exchange.
• 2026-07-16 — al-electrician — requirements/exemptions (high)
  Page had NO exemptions field; readers were told a license is needed with no statement of who is exempt (highest-harm class). Added Ala. Code §34-36-13(a)(1)-(9), verified live against the AECB-hosted statute PDF: NESC utility power systems; telephone/signal systems for public utilities; municipal CATV technician; electrician employed by a board/county/municipal licensee; owner-of-premises (and their employees); electric-utility employee servicing customer appliances; retail merchant servicing appliances it sold + modular/manufactured-housing makers; 25-volts-or-less; direct broadcast satellite.
• 2026-07-16 — al-electrician — credential_holder/title/description (medium)
  Description falsely said 'Alabama licenses the contractor ... not individual electricians'. §34-36-7(c) issues licenses to PERSONS ('a firm, partnership, association, or corporation, as such, shall not be licensed'), and the AECB issues an individual Journeyman Electrician license. Flipped credential holder contractor->individual; title now 'Alabama Electrician License', false denial removed. Contractor license still documented in license_types/body.
• 2026-07-16 — tn-electrician — credential_holder/title/description (medium)
  Description falsely said 'Tennessee licenses the contractor ... not individual electricians'. Live tn.gov LLE page: 'The LLE license is issued to individuals passing the LLE trade exam' (T.C.A. 62-6-102(d)), for work <$25,000/project in municipalities using the Division of Fire Prevention. Flipped credential holder->individual; false denial removed. Contractor (CE) license still documented.
• 2026-07-16 — sc-electrician — credential_holder/title/description (medium)
  Description falsely said 'South Carolina licenses the contractor ... not individual electricians'. Live llr.sc.gov: 'Residential Electrician License -- Individuals interested in becoming a Licensed Residential Electrician ... Residential electrical work exceeding $500 requires a license.' SC issues an individual Residential Electrician License (RBC). Flipped credential holder->individual; false denial removed. Mechanical Contractor (EL) still documented.
• 2026-07-16 — mt-electrician — license types[Journeyman].experience (high)
  Page CONJOINED apprenticeship AND hours ('approved inside wireman apprenticeship ... PLUS one of 8,000/20,000 hrs'); statute makes them independent alternatives. Corrected against LIVE MCA 2025 37-68-305(1): any ONE of (a) approved apprenticeship (Title 39 ch.6) or a substantially equivalent electrical-trade program; (b) 8,000 hrs practical; (c) 20,000 hrs maintenance (min 8,000 practical). NOTE: the audit quoted FOUR options from a stale board booklet; the live current statute has THREE (apprenticeship + 'substantially equivalent' merged into (a)). Applied the live statute, not the audit. Dropped 'inside wireman' (statute says 'in the electrical trade').
• 2026-07-16 — mt-electrician — license types[Residential].experience (high)
  Same conjunction defect on the Residential license. Corrected against LIVE MCA 2025 37-68-305(3): any ONE of (a) approved residential apprenticeship (Title 39 ch.6) or substantially equivalent; (b) 4,000 hrs practical (residential <5 units); (c) 20,000 hrs maintenance (min 8,000 practical). Live statute = THREE options (audit's four came from a stale booklet).
• 2026-07-16 — mo-electrician — license types[0].experience/requirements (high)
  Page stated only '12,000 hrs OR 6-of-8-years local licensure', overstating the experience burden and omitting three routes. Corrected against LIVE revisor.mo.gov 324.920.1(4): any ONE of (a) 12,000 practical hrs; (b) 10,000 hrs + DOL journeyman certificate; (c) 8,000 hrs + associate's degree; (d) 4,000 supervisory hrs + 4-year electrical engineering degree. The 6-of-8-years local-license route is the SEPARATE 324.920.2 pathway.
• 2026-07-16 — mo-electrician — requirements[Prerequisite local license] (medium)
  Page framed a prior political-subdivision license as a universal prerequisite. Live 324.920: it conditions ONLY the 324.920.2 pathway; 324.920.1 applicants (insurance + exam + one of four experience options) need no prior local license. Reframed as pathway-specific.
• 2026-07-16 — me-electrician — requirements[Reciprocity] (high)
  Page listed reciprocity as NH+VT only, wrongly telling ND/ID/OR/WY journeyman applicants Maine has no agreement. Two official maine.gov board pages CONFLICT (both confirmed live): Master Electrician page = New Hampshire and Vermont; Journeyman Electrician page = New Hampshire, Vermont, North Dakota, Idaho, Oregon, Wyoming. Now states BOTH, attributed to each page, per the cycle rule (never resolve a source conflict silently).
• 2026-07-16 — ia-electrician — requirements/exemptions (medium)
  Only the homeowner exemption was listed; Iowa Code 103.22 exempts several more categories (verified live at legis.iowa.gov/docs/code/103.pdf): farm installations (owner/tenant/relatives/employees, no permit or inspection); routine maintenance; and low-voltage/Class 2-3/alarm/communications wiring. Added an Other exemptions entry so the page does not imply a license is needed for exempt work.
• 2026-07-16 — id-electrician — requirements/exemptions (medium)
  No exemptions field at all. Added Idaho Code 54-1016 exemptions (verified live): homeowners/facility owners may perform installations on their own property (DOPL program info; IDAPA 24.39.10); regulated utilities, telephone companies, rural telephone cooperatives, and municipal communications utilities and their employees are exempt for communication circuits/apparatus (54-1016(1)(a)).
• 2026-07-16 — de-electrician — requirements[General liability insurance] (medium)
  Insurance-exempt list omitted RESIDENTIAL. 24 DE Admin Code 1400 (verified live against the live source): licensees EXCEPT journeyperson, residential, and apprentice must carry $300,000 general liability insurance. Added residential to the exempt list. The Board renewal webpage lists only journeyperson+apprentice (omits residential) and conflicts with the codified rule; stated both, attributed, codified rule controls.
• 2026-07-15 — ky-food-handler — source urls (medium)
  Cited KRS 217.015 via versioned URL statute.aspx?id=48560, the 'Effective until July 15, 2026' version. That version expired Jul 15, 2026; the URL now 302-redirects to InvalidStatute.aspx and serves an 'Invalid Statute' error page. Live-page citation returned an error to any reader/AI grounder following it. Underlying facts (KRS 217.015(21) food service establishment; (40) retail food store exclusions) were re-verified against the current version (id=57381 PDF) and MATCH -- numbering and substance unchanged; only the URL rotted.
• 2026-07-12 — ak-alcohol-server — exemptions (high)
  The page presented the AS 04.21.025(f) license list as the complete set of carve-outs from Alaska's server-education requirement, omitting subsection (e): common carrier dispensary licensees (airlines, cruise ships, railroads), whose agents and employees are trained under the carrier's own board-reviewed program instead of the board-approved course. AS 04.21.025(a) opens 'Except as provided under (e) and (f) of this section' (akleg.gov, read at the live source 2026-07-12), corroborated by 3 AAC 305.700(a). A common carrier employee reading the page was told they must obtain the AMCO card within 30 days when they do not.
• 2026-07-12 — al-alcohol-server — who must get (low)
  The page stated the Responsible Vendor Program training and exam duties but omitted the ongoing personal duty on the same staff: Ala. Admin. Code r. 20-X-12-.06(2)(c) requires responsible vendors to have each server, seller and manager attend meetings semi-annually or more frequently. The duty also appears on the Board's live Application for Certification (RVP-6-24-2024), item C.
• 2026-07-12 — az-alcohol-server — who must get (high)
  The page said Basic Title 4 training is 'optional for line staff' and never mentioned Registered Alcohol Delivery Drivers, for whom the DLLC requires completion of a DLLC-approved Title 4 Basic training program (or equivalent) and current certification as a condition of registration. Source: liquor.az.gov Registered Alcohol Delivery Driver page (read at the live source 2026-07-12), under A.R.S. § 4-205.13(D) / § 4-112(G)(2) authority. A would-be delivery driver following the page would skip training the department requires.
• 2026-07-12 — az-alcohol-server — who must get (medium)
  The page's 'optional for line staff' claim carries no exception for staff of restaurants holding the off-premises mixed-cocktail permit. A.R.S. § 4-205.02(K) (2025 Title 4 Law Book) provides that beginning January 1, 2026 'all permit holders and their employees, managers and agents must complete alcohol training pursuant to section 4-112, subsection G, paragraph 2' — a statutory mandate in force before the page's last verified date.
• 2026-07-12 — co-alcohol-server — who must get (high)
  The page stated categorically 'No individual is required by state law to hold an alcohol server card,' but at least four Colorado statutory contexts require completed LED server/seller training: alcohol delivery persons (C.R.S. § 44-3-911(3)(d)), persons conducting tastings at retail liquor stores/liquor-licensed drugstores/FMB-and-wine retailers (§ 44-3-301(10)(c)), servers and security in common consumption areas (§ 44-3-910(1)(a)), and educational-class instructors (§ 44-3-301(13)(c)). Verified against the DOR's 2025 Liquor Code and Reg 47-605 PDFs on sbg.colorado.gov (read at the live source 2026-07-12).
• 2026-07-12 — co-alcohol-server — approved provider rule (medium)
  The page described earning the responsible-vendor certificate (2 hours, 70% test) without mentioning that certification validity is scoped by establishment type. Reg 47-605(D)(3)-(4) provides that on-premises-only certification may be used only in on-premises establishments and off-premises-only certification only in off-premises establishments; combined-program certification covers both ((D)(2)). A reader changing jobs between a bar and a liquor store could hold a certification invalid for their establishment.
• 2026-07-12 — co-alcohol-server — mandate detail (low)
  The page labeled Colorado's responsible-vendor benefit 'Safe-harbor: responsible-vendor certification mitigates licensee penalties.' C.R.S. § 44-3-601(9) grants mitigation only — authorities 'shall consider it a mitigating factor' — not a safe harbor or affirmative defense barring discipline. The clause after the colon was accurate; the 'Safe-harbor:' label overstated the benefit.
• 2026-07-12 — co-alcohol-server — legal basis (low)
  The legal basis cited '1 CCR 203-2, Regulation 47-605 — Responsible Alcohol Beverage Vendor', truncating the regulation's actual title 'Responsible Alcohol Beverage Vendor and Permitted Tastings by Retail Liquor Stores and Liquor-Licensed Drugstores' (sbg.colorado.gov 47-605.pdf). The truncation hides the mandatory-tastings scope from anyone scanning the citations.
• 2026-07-12 — ct-alcohol-server — who must get (medium)
  The page said the Liquor Law Education Program applies to every NEW permit applicant effective January 1, 2026. DCP's requirements article states the program also applies to Transfer of Interest / Transfer of Stock and Substitute Permittee applications submitted on or after January 1, 2026, covering the full ownership structure of the backer entity (portal.ct.gov DCP knowledge-base, fetched 2026-07-12). Someone buying into an existing permit would wrongly conclude the program does not apply to them.
• 2026-07-12 — ct-alcohol-server — exemptions (low)
  The page listed the permit-holder exemptions but omitted a third route: DCP's discretionary waiver ('By law, DCP may waive the education requirement, at its discretion'), submitted in writing through eLicense, with examples including investors holding under 5% of a large backer entity and prior completion under another license. Source: DCP exemptions article on portal.ct.gov (fetched 2026-07-12).
• 2026-07-12 — ct-alcohol-server — who must get (low)
  The page said holders of active provisional or final permits on January 1, 2026 are 'exempt for renewal.' DCP states the exemptions differently: final-permit holders need no education to renew, while provisional-permit holders' exemption covers converting the provisional permit to a final permit, not renewal (DCP exemptions article, portal.ct.gov).
• 2026-07-12 — dc-alcohol-server — mandate detail (high)
  The page said covered DC establishments 'must employ a licensed ABC Manager ... on duty and on the premises during all licensed hours,' citing the definition at § 25-101(11A). D.C. Official Code § 25-701(a-1)(1) makes the presence duty 'an establishment's owner or Board-approved manager,' § 25-701(c) exempts licensees who personally superintend the establishment during licensed hours, and ABCA's own manager page says an ABC Manager is required only 'when the license holder is not on duty and on-premises.' An owner-operator acting on the page would obtain or hire a manager license they may not need; the operative section § 25-701 was never cited.
• 2026-07-12 — dc-alcohol-server — who must get (low)
  The page said 'the Board may order all of a cited licensee's employees to complete training (§ 25-121(2))'. § 25-121(2) only authorizes provider approval for 'providing alcohol training and education to a licensee as a result of an order of the Board' — the words 'all employees' are not in it; that formulation belongs to § 25-781's suspension-stay condition, which the page cites correctly elsewhere. Source: code.dccouncil.gov § 25-121 (fetched 2026-07-12).
• 2026-07-12 — dc-alcohol-server — cost range (low)
  The page attributed ABCA's Fee and Renewal Schedule to D.C. Official Code § 25-120(c). That subsection only sets the manager license's 3-year validity and requires the fee to be paid at application — it does not establish or reference the fee schedule (D.C. Law 14-190 removed the old Chapter 5 fee cross-reference). The fee-schedule fact is true but § 25-120(c) is the wrong hook.
• 2026-07-12 — de-alcohol-server — exemptions (medium)
  The page stated the exemption 'Licenses issued under 4 Del. C. §§ 514 and 525 are exempt' only as bare section numbers, never identifying § 514 as gathering/one-off event licenses and § 525 as package-store tasting licenses (delcode.delaware.gov Title 4). A bartender pouring at a licensed one-day event or a package-store tasting could not tell from the page that they are exempt — the exemption was stated but not actionable.
• 2026-07-12 — de-alcohol-server — cost range (medium)
  The page said Delaware 'caps any approved provider's ID-card fee at $15 (4 Del. C. § 1208)'. § 1208(c) actually caps what an approved provider 'may be required to remit ... to the Commissioner' to offset card-creation costs — a provider-side cost, not a cap on what a provider may charge the trainee (DRA's approved course is $25 all-in). The cap runs in the opposite direction from what the page implied.
• 2026-07-12 — de-alcohol-server — who must get (low)
  The page applied the on-premises verb list ('sells, prepares, dispenses, serves, or otherwise delivers') to off-premises consumption as well. The statute's verb lists differ: § 1203(a)/(b) (on-premises) uses the full list, while § 1203(c)/(d) (off-premises) uses only 'sell, serve or otherwise deliver' (delcode.delaware.gov Title 4 ch. 12). Harmless over-inclusion.
• 2026-07-12 — de-alcohol-server — mandate detail (low)
  The page said the licensee 'must certify their servers' training ... within 30 days of a license being granted or renewed.' Under § 1203(b)/(d) the certification is made as part of the license application; the 30-day window exists only when the Commissioner exercises the § 1202(e) discretion to grant conditionally with certification due within 30 days. A discretionary accommodation was stated as the baseline duty.
• 2026-07-12 — fl-alcohol-server — exemptions (medium)
  The page presented Responsible Vendor qualification as available to any licensed establishment. Fla. Stat. § 561.703(2) exempts vendors at grocery or drug stores licensed under s. 563.02(1)(a) or s. 564.02(1)(a) whose premises exceed 5,000 square feet from the entire Responsible Vendor Act — such stores are outside the training scheme and the s. 561.706 safe harbor alike (leg.state.fl.us, 2025 statutes).
• 2026-07-12 — fl-alcohol-server — who must get (medium)
  The page's 'if it opts in, it must ...' list covered only 3 of the 9 duties § 561.705, Fla. Stat. conditions responsible-vendor qualification on — omitting the course-provision duties, the new-hire written questionnaire, the written drug policy with immediate dismissal, employment records, premises signage, and supervision of untrained employees. A vendor doing only the page's three items would believe it qualified for the s. 561.706 safe harbor and fail the Division's full-checklist test at enforcement time.
• 2026-07-12 — ga-alcohol-server — exemptions (high)
  The page presented Macon-Bibb County's Alcohol Handler's License ($25/yr) with no scope limits. The county's own application (Rev. 7/2021, the source the page cites) restricts the license to staff of businesses that do NOT earn at least 50% of gross annual revenue from food sales (and their supervisors) whose duties include pouring, mixing, or opening alcoholic beverages by the drink. Most restaurant servers and bartenders in Macon-Bibb work for food-majority businesses and are exempt — the page told them they need a license they do not need.
• 2026-07-12 — ga-alcohol-server — who must get (medium)
  The page's Macon-Bibb duty sentence covered only people who pour, serve, sell, or handle alcohol. The county's Alcohol Handler's License application also requires the license of anyone with at least 25% ownership in a business selling alcohol at retail (package or by the drink, unless publicly traded) and of any person serving as the agent on a Macon-Bibb retail alcohol license. An owner or license agent of a Macon package store would not learn from the page that they personally need the license.
• 2026-07-12 — ga-alcohol-server — who must get (medium)
  The page stated as a general rule that 'where a city or county requires a pouring/server permit, anyone who pours, mixes, opens, serves, sells, or handles alcohol (managers included) must obtain the local permit.' Verified local scopes differ materially: Macon-Bibb covers only staff of under-50%-food-revenue businesses, Douglas County covers servers in on-premises pouring venues, and Cobb County § 6-207 also covers package- and convenience-store employees. No verified jurisdiction has the page's universal scope.
• 2026-07-12 — ga-alcohol-server — county exceptions (medium)
  The page said Statesboro requires 'employee pouring or work permits.' Statesboro's ordinance (Code ch. 6, Sec. 6-10, 2016 revision) instead imposes a TIPS-style responsible-service training mandate enforced through the licensee, and the chapter's only individual permit is the Alcoholic Beverage Security Permit, required of bouncers only (city ordinance PDF via Wayback; current municode chapter). A Statesboro server would search for a pouring permit that does not exist for servers.
• 2026-07-12 — ga-alcohol-server — faq (low)
  FAQ #2's answer to 'How long is an alcohol server card valid in Georgia?' rendered as 'No statewide card; state delivery-driver training certification: 2' — the raw validity years field value with no unit leaked into prose served standalone in FAQ schema. The underlying fact (2 years, per dor.georgia.gov) is correct.
• 2026-07-12 — hi-alcohol-server — mandate detail (medium)
  The page's lead framed Honolulu as carding 'on-premises employees' only. The Honolulu Liquor Commission's own card page also issues the Purple card to Managers/Assistant Managers of OFF-premises retail stores (server training required, 21+, valid 4 years from certification) — honolulu.gov/liq get-a-liquor-card page, fetched 2026-07-12. An Oahu liquor/grocery-store manager could conclude the card regime does not reach off-premises retail.
• 2026-07-12 — hi-alcohol-server — faq (medium)
  FAQ #5, introduced with 'every county sets its own individual-credential rule,' enumerated only Honolulu, Maui, and Kauai — item (4) Hawaii County (Big Island), present in the county exceptions field and page body, was truncated out of the FAQ answer. A Big Island reader consuming the FAQ (a standalone fact surface in FAQ schema) gets an enumeration that omits their county entirely.
• 2026-07-12 — hi-alcohol-server — approved provider rule (low)
  The page said the physical card is issued 'after the applicant passes the county exam.' Honolulu's Gray (General Staff/Host) and Red (minor employee) cards require no training or exam — only age and registration; training plus examination applies only to Manager/Assistant Manager (Blue/Purple) and Bartender (Yellow) cards (honolulu.gov/liq card and training pages).
• 2026-07-12 — hi-alcohol-server — county exceptions (low)
  The page called Maui County's certification exam a 'written exam.' Maui's Liquor Laws and Rules exam is administered online through the eSkill Assessment Platform (mauicounty.gov/669/Certification-Exam, fetched 2026-07-12). Kauai's exam remains an in-person written exam per its test-information page.
• 2026-07-12 — hi-alcohol-server — source urls (low)
  The page cites Hawaii County's '2026 Liquor Examination Schedule' PDF covering January–June 2026; all listed sessions (last: June 17 Hilo, June 24 Kona) are past as of the audit date, so a reader clicking through finds no bookable dates. The facts cited from it ($2 fee, 2-hour session, 18-20 rule) remain on the document — a citation-freshness defect, not a wrong fact.
• 2026-07-12 — ia-alcohol-server — issuing authority (medium)
  The page named the issuer as 'Iowa Department of Revenue, Alcoholic Beverages Division.' The ABD was dissolved effective July 1, 2023: under the 2023 State Government Alignment Act (2023 Iowa Acts ch. 19) its duties moved into IDR's Alcoholic and Tax Operations Division (Iowa LSA Budget Unit Brief FY 2025, July 1, 2024; IDR's own I-PACT page names no division). The department was correct but the named organizational unit no longer exists.
• 2026-07-12 — id-alcohol-server — exemptions (low)
  The page stated Boise's 60-day server-training mandate without the club-licensee carve-out. Boise City Code 3-3B-3(B) requires club licensees only to keep at least one trained supervising server on the premises; volunteers may serve under that supervision, and the 3-3B-1 'server of alcohol' definition is tied to employment, excluding club volunteers from the individual 60-day duty (codelibrary.amlegal.com Boise code).
• 2026-07-12 — ks-alcohol-server — who must get (low)
  The page's employment-bar sentence listed the felony and liquor-violation bars but omitted the morals-charge bar: K.S.A. 41-2610(b) prohibits employing in serving/dispensing/mixing anyone adjudged guilty of a felony 'or of any crime involving a morals charge' (ksrevisor.gov). The Kansas ABC's own Employee Qualifications FAQ makes the identical simplification, which the page mirrored.
• 2026-07-12 — ky-alcohol-server — exemptions (high)
  The page presented Bowling Green's server-training mandate (City Code §4-8.08) with no exemption. §4-8.08(d) states verbatim: 'Any person working at a special event for which a temporary alcoholic beverage license has been approved shall not be required to comply with this Section' (codelibrary.amlegal.com Bowling Green). The page told festival and special-event workers they must obtain a $40 STAR certification the ordinance explicitly says they do not need.
• 2026-07-12 — ky-alcohol-server — who must get (medium)
  The page said Bowling Green 'requires every server' to train, without the ordinance's definition of who counts. BG Code §4-8.08(a) defines 'server' to include 'any person employed or working in any capacity, whether as an employee, volunteer help or as a working proprietor' whose duties include sale, dispensing, service, 'or the management of the licensed premises.' Managers, working owners, and volunteers could wrongly read themselves out of the mandate.
• 2026-07-12 — ky-alcohol-server — faq (medium)
  The FAQ 'Which Kentucky counties require an alcohol server card?' listed only (1) Danville and (2) Lexington-Fayette before cutting off — item (3) Bowling Green, present in the page's own county exceptions and mandated by BG Code §4-8.08, was truncated out of the answer. A reader or search snippet consuming only the FAQ gets a list that omits one of the three mandate cities (the known 'never truncate an answer into a wrong one' generator trap).
• 2026-07-12 — ky-alcohol-server — legal basis (medium)
  The page's citation described KRS 244.080 as 'an affirmative defense for a good-faith sale to a minor, which STAR record-keeping supports.' The statute's defense (current revision eff. 3/25/2025, apps.legislature.ky.gov) turns on false/fraudulent/altered identification plus the purchaser's appearance and says nothing about training records; no official Kentucky source ties STAR record-keeping to the defense. The clause is an invented legal benefit, and 'good-faith sale' is a loose gloss on a fraudulent-ID defense.
• 2026-07-12 — ky-alcohol-server — county exceptions (medium)
  The page presented Danville's 30-day training window as universal. Danville Code §2.5-141(b) adds: 'When a new business is licensed to serve alcoholic beverages all employees must be trained prior to the opening of the business' (danvilleky.org DocumentCenter compilation; also stated on the city's Server-Training page). Staff of a newly licensed establishment do not get 30 days.
• 2026-07-12 — ky-alcohol-server — legal basis (low)
  The page cites Danville's ordinance as 'City Code Section 2-5-141' in multiple places. The city code chapter is 'CHAPTER 2.5 ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES' with section 'Sec. 2.5-141. Mandatory responsible beverage service training' (Danville DocumentCenter PDF); the hyphenated form likely traces to a typo ('2-.5-141') on the city's own web page.
• 2026-07-12 — ma-alcohol-server — county exceptions (high)
  The page presented Worcester's 30-day certification window as universal. Worcester License Commission Rule 28(a) contains, in the same sentence the page paraphrases, the exception 'persons serving under the authority of a one day special license shall be server trained prior to serving any alcoholic beverages' (worcesterma.gov server-training-rules.pdf, adopted 8/15/2019). Anyone pouring at a Worcester one-day-special-license event has no grace period; relying on the page means serving untrained in violation of the rule.
• 2026-07-12 — ma-alcohol-server — approved provider rule (medium)
  The page said Worcester 'accepts only in-class/live programs from its published list.' Rule 28(b) says the list is informational — 'a list of local in-class/live programs that are offered ... subject to change ... The City does not endorse or support any specific program' — the actual requirement is proof of completion of any in-class/live program (online barred since Sept 1, 2019). A reader could wrongly reject a legitimate live program because it isn't on the list.
• 2026-07-12 — ma-alcohol-server — county exceptions (medium)
  The page carried only Somerville's §1.19(b) employee rule (training within 60 days of hire). Somerville Rules & Regulations §1.19(a) (March 2025 edition) separately requires the owner or manager of the licensee to complete initial training with the Somerville Cares Prevention Program (SCAP) within 30 days of every alcohol-license issuance or renewal (city rules PDF on Somerville's S3 distribution channel, p. 19). An owner/manager would miss a distinct, shorter-deadline municipal obligation.
• 2026-07-12 — ma-alcohol-server — description (low)
  The frontmatter description and mandate detail said 'servers, sellers, and (in Worcester) ID-checkers,' narrowing ID-checkers to Worcester. Somerville §1.19(b) covers employees 'checking identification or providing security' — ID-checking is not Worcester-only and security staff are covered nowhere in the page's summary sentences, though the county_exceptions/FAQ text includes them (internal inconsistency confined to the summary surfaces).
• 2026-07-12 — md-alcohol-server — exemptions (high)
  The page said a holder of ANY Maryland retail alcoholic beverages license (or designated employee) must complete approved alcohol awareness training, with no exemption stated. Md. Alcoholic Beverages § 4-505(b)(2) provides the section does not apply to (i) a temporary license, (ii) Class E water vessel, (iii) Class F railroad, or (iv) Class G airplane on-sale licenses (mgaleg.maryland.gov). Nonprofits and event organizers holding temporary licenses were told certification is legally required when the entire section, including its penalties, does not apply to them.
• 2026-07-12 — md-alcohol-server — county exceptions (medium)
  The page asserted in the present tense that the Frederick, Carroll, and Washington county Boards of License Commissioners are ATCC-approved alcohol awareness providers. The page's own cited ATCC permit listing shows Washington County BOLC's permit (AP-80003) as Closed since October 31, 2023, and Carroll County's (AP-80005) as Pending Renewal; only Frederick (AP-80008) shows Issued (atcc.maryland.gov account listing). A Washington County reader could seek certification from a board that no longer holds a program permit.
• 2026-07-12 — md-alcohol-server — description (medium)
  The SERP description dropped the word 'individual,' flatly claiming 'Maryland does not mandate an alcohol awareness program certificate.' § 4-505(e) is a mandate — the license holder or a designated employee shall complete approved training — enforced by local boards under § 4-505(h) with a $100 first-offense fine and up to $500/suspension/revocation thereafter. The page's H1 and FAQ correctly keep 'individual'; the description lost it, telling a licensee in the search snippet that no legal duty exists.
• 2026-07-12 — mi-alcohol-server — who must get (high)
  The page said 'No individual server or seller is required by statewide law to personally obtain a card.' MCL 436.1707(7) allows an on-premises licensee to let a 17-year-old sell or serve alcohol only if 'the individual has completed a server training program as provided for in section 906,' and Michigan LARA's live page confirms training is required for 'any employee between the age of 17 and 18 that will serve alcoholic beverages for an on-premises licensee.' A 17-year-old (or their employer) acting on the page serves without legally required training.
• 2026-07-12 — mi-alcohol-server — who must get (high)
  The page said off-premises licensees need server training 'only when specifically ordered by the commission.' MCL 436.1203(12)(c) and (14)(c) require the retailer or its employee providing delivery service to have 'successfully completed a server training program as provided for in section 906,' and Michigan LARA's live page confirms the mandate for catering-permit servers and any employee delivering alcohol off the licensed premises. Delivery staff and catering-permit servers acting on the page skip legally required training.
• 2026-07-12 — mi-alcohol-server — legal basis (medium)
  The page attributed to MCL 436.1906(10) a duty on 'each on-premises licensee' to have trained supervisory personnel on every shift. The statute scopes the duty to licensees whose license was issued or 50%+-transferred after the mandatory server training program commenced, or licensees the commission determines need training; the broad framing is MLCC's own (FAQ and form LC-1866), which the page adopted silently under the statute citation. A grandfathered legacy licensee is outside the statute's stated scope.
• 2026-07-12 — mi-alcohol-server — faq (low)
  The FAQ, Quick facts, and description state the certification is 'valid for 3 years' as a fixed term. Mich. Admin. Code R 436.1060(5) sets a ceiling: certification 'shall expire not more than 3 years from the date of issuance' — an administrator may issue shorter. The page's own legal basis quotes the rule correctly; the derived surfaces flattened it.
• 2026-07-12 — mn-alcohol-server — county exceptions (high)
  The page claimed Rochester has a mandatory server-training ordinance at City Code § 810.60(12). The current Rochester City Code (Municode, Supplement 8 Update 1, content through 2026-05-21) contains no server-training provision anywhere: full-code searches returned zero hits, the only liquor chapter (5-19, Alcoholic Beverages, 34 sections) has none, and the current numbering has no § 810.60 (pre-recodification citation). The page's only support was a Sept-2022 UMN model-ordinance PDF citing the old code.
• 2026-07-12 — mn-alcohol-server — mandate detail (high)
  The page said St. Paul 'only offers a liquor-license fee reduction to licensees who train their staff (an incentive, not a mandate).' Current St. Paul Legislative Code § 409.01(7) (chapter reenacted by Ord 22-47, Nov 9, 2022) MANDATES that 'all servers of alcohol at a catered event must have received alcohol server training as approved by the director' and be at least 18 (Municode). The word 'only' granted an exemption the law does not — a server at a catered event under a class T/N license relying on the page skips required training.
• 2026-07-12 — mn-alcohol-server — county exceptions (medium)
  The page cites St. Paul § 310.19 for the fee-reduction incentive. Chapter 310 §§ 310.01-310.19 was repealed and a new chapter enacted by Ord 22-46 on November 9, 2022; the surviving incentive is current § 310.16 'Discount from certain license fees' (7% reduction, conditioned on security-agency contract with training, among other conditions). The incentive fact survives but the cited section number has been dead for over three years and the mechanism's details differ.
• 2026-07-12 — mn-alcohol-server — exemptions (medium)
  The page said in Roseville every licensee, manager, and employee/agent who sells or serves must complete city-approved training before serving and annually thereafter. Roseville City Code § 302.08(C) opens 'With the exception of temporary on-sale licenses issued pursuant to Section 302.02, subparts k and l' and allows the annual renewal to be extended 'for hardship reasons' (official city Title 3 PDF). Someone serving under a Roseville temporary on-sale license is told they need training they do not.
• 2026-07-12 — mn-alcohol-server — source urls (low)
  The Rochester and St. Paul claims rested solely on the University of Minnesota Alcohol Epidemiology Program model-ordinance PDF (Sept 2022) — a university aggregator, not either city's code — and both facts it carried have since gone stale (Rochester provision absent from current code; St. Paul § 310.19 repealed 2022). A textbook staleness carrier under the site's official-sources-only citation rule.
• 2026-07-12 — mn-alcohol-server — legal basis (low)
  The Sources block labels Minn. Stat. § 340A.509 as '(Local Regulation)'. The section's actual title is 'LOCAL RESTRICTIONS' (revisor.mn.gov, read at the live source 2026-07-12); the quoted sentence on the page is verbatim-correct, only the section title in the label is wrong.
• 2026-07-12 — mn-alcohol-server — description (low)
  The meta description contains double punctuation ('...(an incentive, not a mandate).. What alcohol servers actually need...') from splicing the mandate detail sentence into the description template. The description also embeds the Rochester/St. Paul content that is separately defective.
• 2026-07-12 — ms-alcohol-server — who must get (low)
  The page said 'Owners and managers of a permitted establishment must maintain ABC identification cards.' The MS DOR ABC FAQ scopes the duty to owners and managers of package and on-premise retailers (per-employee cards discontinued March 3, 1999); the page's 'any permitted establishment' phrasing would sweep in caterers, delivery services, and temporary permittees the FAQ does not name.
• 2026-07-12 — mt-alcohol-server — who must get (high)
  The page stated the 60-day-from-hire training window categorically for all covered classes including 'alcohol delivery service' employees. MCA 16-4-1005(1)(a) (2025) opens 'Except as provided in 16-4-307,' and MCA 16-4-307(3)(e) (effective January 1, 2026) requires third-party delivery licensees' drivers to complete a responsible server and sales training program or a department-certified delivery training program (16-4-1010) BEFORE their first alcohol delivery. A delivery driver relying on the 60-day window would deliver untrained in violation of current law.
• 2026-07-12 — mt-alcohol-server — source urls (low)
  All five statute URLs on the page (three legal basis plus two source urls) point at the superseded host archive.legmt.gov; each returns 301 Moved Permanently to the mca.legmt.gov equivalent, which serves the current MCA 2025 with 2025 amendment history the record predates. Citations still resolve to current law but the cited host is superseded.
• 2026-07-12 — nc-alcohol-server — who must get (medium)
  The page scoped North Carolina's delivery-training mandate to persons delivering 'under a delivery service permit.' G.S. 18B-1001.4(e) (current through S.L. 2025-25) provides that a qualifying retailer needs no delivery service permit to deliver its own malt beverages/wine, 'however, the other provisions of this section apply to the retailer' — which includes subsection (b)'s pre-delivery training requirement. Employees of retailers delivering their own product would read themselves out of the training mandate; the construction question is stated in the findings rather than resolved.
• 2026-07-12 — nd-alcohol-server — county exceptions (high)
  The page carries Fargo's 90-day server-training grace period in three places. Fargo Ordinance No. 5378 (City Commission, December 27, 2022) abolished it: 'Server training is required to be completed prior to employment. Previously the ordinance allowed for a 90-day grace period,' extended scope to 'all people involved in the stream of service of alcoholic beverages, including security,' and moved delivery online-only via the ND Safety Council (~$20) — per the city's news post and the live Fargo Cass Public Health page. A new hire in North Dakota's largest city relying on the page would serve untrained for up to 90 days.
• 2026-07-12 — nd-alcohol-server — cost range (medium)
  The page said Williston assesses a $250 administrative fee on the license holder for a first sale-to-minor violation. Current Williston City Code §3-150(c), as amended by Ord. No. 1101 (4-23-2019, on eCode360), sets 'a mandatory $750 administrative fee' for a first offense and $2,500 for a second within 60 months. The $250/$500/$1,000 schedule the page carried exists only in the stale ND HHS ordinance compilation.
• 2026-07-12 — nd-alcohol-server — cost range (medium)
  The page stated categorically that 'ordinance penalties fall on the licensed establishment, not the server.' Grand Forks City Code 21-0236(1) fines the individual violating the work-without-certificate prohibition of 21-0235(1) personally: $50 first violation, $100 second within a year, $200 for each further violation within a year of the second (ND HHS official ordinance compilation, p. 6).
• 2026-07-12 — nd-alcohol-server — faq (medium)
  FAQ 5 opens 'At least six North Dakota cities mandate individual server training by ordinance...' then lists only Grand Forks, Fargo, and Williston before cutting off — West Fargo, Dickinson, and Watford City were truncated out. The body section has all six; the FAQ, the schema surface most likely to appear in search results, presents a 6-city claim with a 3-city list.
• 2026-07-12 — nd-alcohol-server — faq (low)
  FAQ 1's answer ends mid-sentence — '...the licensee is responsible for lawful service; under N.D.' — a truncation leaving a dangling citation fragment. The intended completion is the N.D. Cent. Code § 5-02-10.1 mitigating-factor sentence.
• 2026-07-12 — nd-alcohol-server — mandate level (low)
  The page frames North Dakota's mandates as county-level: mandate level is 'county-mandated' and FAQ 5 asks 'Which North Dakota counties require an alcohol server card?'. All six defining mandates are CITY ordinances (Grand Forks, Fargo, West Fargo, Williston, Dickinson, Watford City); no ND county ordinance was found by the audit or by the HHS compilation.
• 2026-07-12 — nd-alcohol-server — legal basis (low)
  The Williston legal basis cites 'City Code Sec. 3-150 ... (Ord. No. 854; Ord. No. 895)' and titles the section 'Suspension of license to sell alcoholic beverages,' omitting the 2019 amendment. The current section (eCode360) is titled 'Administrative fees and suspension or revocation of license...' with history including Ord. No. 1101 (4-23-2019), and the old (c)(5) $100 server ID-check fee and the Williston PD card-retrieval role are gone from current text; further Ch. 3 amendments (Ord. 1171, 2025-09-09; Ord. 1173, 2025-10-14) post-date the citation. The stale ND HHS compilation was the carrier.
• 2026-07-12 — ne-alcohol-server — who must get (medium)
  The page said the underlying legal duty (not selling to minors or visibly intoxicated persons) rests 'on the licensed establishment.' Neb. Rev. Stat. § 53-180 binds 'no person,' and § 53-180.05(1) makes any person who violates it guilty of a Class I misdemeanor (Class IIIA felony if serious bodily injury/death results) — the criminal duty binds the individual bartender or clerk personally; only license discipline (§ 53-1,104) runs to the licensee. A Nebraska server could conclude they carry no personal legal exposure.
• 2026-07-12 — ne-alcohol-server — legal basis (low)
  The legal basis labels Neb. Rev. Stat. § 53-180.05 as 'Prohibited acts relating to minors; penalties (the underlying establishment duty).' The section is the PENALTY provision for § 53-180 (its catchline covers minors and incompetents, penalties, overdose actions, false ID), it applies to any person rather than establishments, and the substantive duty lives in § 53-180, which the page does not cite (nebraskalegislature.gov).
• 2026-07-12 — nh-alcohol-server — exemptions (medium)
  The page said that for a one-day license 'a management representative must train before the event,' implying training before every event. RSA 178:2 IV(b) adds: 'If 2 or more one-day licenses are issued to the same applicant during any 12-month period, the management representative of the applicant shall be required to attend the training program only once during that 12-month period' (gc.nh.gov, current revision with 2025 amendment). Organizations running several one-day events per year need not repeat the training.
• 2026-07-12 — nh-alcohol-server — exemptions (low)
  The page said 'every retail liquor licensee' must complete the Commission's training within 45 days of license issuance. RSA 178:2 II grandfathers pre-existing licensees: 'These provisions shall not apply to any person who holds a retail license on the effective date of this paragraph' (enacted circa 2003-2004). The affected population is small, but 'every retail liquor licensee' is broader than the statute.
• 2026-07-12 — nj-alcohol-server — source urls (medium)
  The page's primary source is the NJ ABC Handbook at nj.gov/lps/abc/downloads/abchandbook.pdf, whose title page reads 'Revised March, 2004' — a superseded edition still served live. The Division's current ABC Publications page links the Revised November 2015 edition (nj.gov/oag/abc/downloads/abchandbook02.pdf), and substantive drift exists between editions (e.g., the ABC-board municipality list changed 19 to 20, adding Secaucus). returned the page is not freshness; the superseded edition is a staleness carrier.
• 2026-07-12 — nj-alcohol-server — who must get (medium)
  The page frames municipal card mandates as arising only 'in a city with its own Alcoholic Beverage Control board.' East Newark — the page's own second example — has no ABC board (licenses issued by the Mayor and Council per Borough Code § 6-3.2, and at ~2,000 residents it cannot create one under the 15,000-population floor in the current ABC Handbook, which lists 20 board municipalities excluding East Newark) yet imposes the bar-card requirement. Card mandates are a function of municipal ordinance under any issuing authority, not of having an ABC board.
• 2026-07-12 — nj-alcohol-server — who must get (medium)
  The page said that under the NJ Licensed Alcoholic Beverage Server Fair Liability Act 'a licensee or server may be held civilly liable' for negligent service. In the Act (L.1987, c.152, §§ 3-5 — the enacted text the page cites), 'server' is a defined term meaning the person LICENSED or permitted to sell alcohol (the establishment), and the Act is the exclusive civil remedy for damages from negligent service by such a server. The phrasing reads to a lay waiter as personal dram-shop liability the Act does not impose on unlicensed employees.
• 2026-07-12 — nj-alcohol-server — who must get (medium)
  The page said New Jersey 'places responsibility on the licensed establishment.' The current ABC Handbook (Rev. Nov. 2015) states that 'a bartender or sales clerk who violates this law [underage sale] will be subject to a disorderly persons charge under N.J.S.A. 33:1-77,' in addition to administrative charges against the license. Individual criminal exposure was erased by the page's framing.
• 2026-07-12 — nj-alcohol-server — cost range (medium)
  The page said Hoboken charges $50 to issue or renew a covered-employee identification card. Hoboken City Code § 68-15F additionally requires a separate money order or check payable to the New Jersey State Police, Identification Division, for the current fingerprint-processing fee (ecode360.com § 68-15F). The applicant's real outlay is $50 plus the State Police fee; a reader arriving with exactly $50 cannot complete the application.
• 2026-07-12 — nj-alcohol-server — cost range (medium)
  The page details East Newark's bar-card process (police application, fingerprints, ID, temporary certificate) but states no fee. East Newark Borough Code § 6-7 (Ord. No. 07-2025) sets a $75 fee per certificate/bar card plus a money order to 'The Division of the State Police - SBI' in the state-required amount; the same section sets the July 1-June 30 card year (renew by May 31) and a 30-day application window for staff hired after July 1, 2025 (ecode360.com).
• 2026-07-12 — nj-alcohol-server — cost range (low)
  The page stated as a statewide pattern that 'where a municipality also requires an alcohol-awareness course, the licensed establishment (not the employee) pays for it.' The only verified basis is Hoboken Code § 68-14A ('The cost for such courses shall be paid for by the licensee.'); no statewide rule makes every municipality's course licensee-paid, and other ordinances could differ.
• 2026-07-12 — nj-alcohol-server — faq (low)
  The FAQ heading asks 'Which New Jersey counties require an alcohol server card?', the description says 'county by county,' and mandate level is 'county-mandated' — while every requirement the page documents is municipal (Hoboken, East Newark city/borough ordinances) and no NJ county requires a server card. Template noun mismatch between the framing surfaces and the content.
• 2026-07-12 — nm-alcohol-server — issuing authority (medium)
  The page said the director may issue temporary server permits 'for which the statute sets no fixed duration.' Literally true of the statute, but the governing rule 15.11.31 NMAC fixes temporary server permits at 120 days from the exam date, the RLD provider-list page states the same, and providers (not only the director) issue them on course completion. The page's own 120-day figure appears only as a contact-ABC wait time, hiding its legal meaning; a server past day 120 without the permanent card is working on an expired temporary permit.
• 2026-07-12 — nm-alcohol-server — approved provider rule (low)
  The page said providers 'must post a $5,000 surety bond (NMSA 1978 §§ 60-6E-3, 60-6E-5).' § 60-6E-5(C) adds that the director 'may, in the director's discretion, allow a provider to submit other evidence of financial responsibility satisfactory to the director in lieu of posting a surety bond' (RLD's current Chapter 60 compilation, effective July 1, 2025). 'Must post' overstates a requirement the statute lets the director waive for equivalents.
• 2026-07-12 — nm-alcohol-server — issuing authority (low)
  Two official RLD pages give different contacts for the same missing-card-after-120-days scenario: the FAQs for Servers page says call 505-476-4875, while the provider-list page says contact (505) 476-4547 or [email protected]. The page silently picked the first; per house rule, both should be stated with attribution.
• 2026-07-12 — nv-alcohol-server — mandate detail (medium)
  The page said smaller counties 'opt in by majority vote of their governing body.' NRS 369.630(7)(b) makes the opt-in unit the JURISDICTION located in a sub-100,000 county — 'if the governing body of the jurisdiction has, by the affirmative vote of a majority of its members, agreed' — so a city inside a small county can opt in even if the county does not. A reader in such a city would wrongly conclude no card is required because their county didn't opt in.
• 2026-07-12 — nv-alcohol-server — approved provider rule (medium)
  Describing the certification requirement, the page states only the statute's minimum ('at least two hours' — NRS 369.625(2)(a)). The certification rule the page itself cites, NAC 394.715(1)(b), sets per-topic minimums summing to 3.5 hours (1 hour clinical effects; 30 minutes each on five further topics) for any certified program. Two official sources set different minimums and the page silently states one; a reader expects a 2-hour course when a certified course must contain at least 3.5 instructional hours.
• 2026-07-12 — nv-alcohol-server — faq (low)
  FAQ 2's answer to 'How long is an alcohol education card valid in Nevada?' rendered as '4 (renew by re-completing a certified program).' — the raw field value with no unit leaked into the answer. The correct fact is 4 years (NRS 369.625(5)(b)(1)).
• 2026-07-12 — oh-alcohol-server — description (low)
  The meta description promises 'the approved providers' while the page's own verified body correctly states 'Ohio does not operate a formal approved-provider registry for alcohol-server training.' A template artifact in a fact surface (SERP snippet) promising a provider list Ohio does not have.
• 2026-07-12 — ok-alcohol-server — approved provider rule (high)
  The page presented the ABLE approved-provider list (in-person and online, incl. TIPS/360training, Learn2Serve, ServSafe) as valid for every covered worker, while telling public-event staff they must be licensed. ABLE's live employee-license page (content blocks modified 2026-06-30/2026-07-07) headers the lists 'Approved In-Person Server Training Programs (in-person training required for Event Bartender)' and 'Approved Online Server Training Programs (not applicable for Event Bartender)'. An event bartender following the page's list and taking an online course completes training ABLE says is not applicable to their role.
• 2026-07-12 — or-alcohol-server — who must get (high)
  The page scoped Oregon's service-permit duty to employees of 'an OLCC-licensed on-premises business.' The on-premises limitation is in no source: OLCC's live page states 'Store clerks/employees responsible for filling growlers at an off-premises licensed business are also required to have a valid service permit,' and ORS 471.360(1)(a)(B) / OAR 845-009-0010(1)(b) cover dispensing into consumer-provided containers with no on-premises limit. A bottle-shop clerk filling growlers would conclude no permit is needed; working without one is a Class B violation (ORS 471.360(3)).
• 2026-07-12 — or-alcohol-server — exemptions (high)
  The page contains no who-does-NOT-need section while its FAQ answers 'Does Oregon require an OLCC service permit? Yes. Any employee...' categorically. OAR 845-009-0010(2) exempts public passenger carriers (airlines, most trains), holders of some temporary sales licenses including nonprofit/charitable employees and volunteers, and persons serving at unlicensed locations; ORS 471.360(2) adds waiver authority (hospitals, nursing/retirement homes), and OLCC's page exempts non-serving roles (bussers, kitchen, door ID checkers, security, janitors). A volunteer at a nonprofit's temporary-license event is told to buy a $23 permit plus a course they are expressly not required to have.
• 2026-07-12 — or-alcohol-server — who must get (medium)
  The page framed the service permit as an employee-only duty ('Any employee of an OLCC-licensed...'). OAR 845-009-0010(1) requires a permit for 'any individual licensee' performing the covered duties, and (1)(d) extends the requirement to 'the individual principals of any licensed legal entity' who mix, sell, serve, or supervise. An owner-operator tending their own bar would conclude permits are only for employees.
• 2026-07-12 — or-alcohol-server — legal basis (medium)
  The page cites ORS 471.360 to oregon.public.law, a private aggregator, and the aggregator is carrying staleness: the current OAR (filed 12/20/2024) references 'ORS 471.360(5)' for the waiver — the post-HB 4138 (2024) structure — while the public.law rendering served at audit shows only subsections (1)-(3) with the waiver at (2) and a source-history ending at 2021 c.351. Under the house rule an aggregator citation is a staleness carrier; the official oregonlegislature.gov text should be cited and the subsection structure re-verified.
• 2026-07-12 — or-alcohol-server — description (low)
  The meta description promises 'local exceptions' but the page contains no local-exceptions content — county exceptions is empty, correctly, since Oregon's mandate is statewide. A template artifact promising a section that doesn't exist.
• 2026-07-12 — pa-alcohol-server — who must get (high)
  The page said establishment RAMP certification is 'voluntary for the licensee unless' three triggers (adjudicated citation, conditional licensing agreement, wine-expanded/RTD permit). It never mentions the standing mandate of 47 P.S. § 4-471.1(g) (added 2011): a manager appointed by a restaurant, eating-place retail dispenser, hotel, club, limited distillery, or distributor licensee must complete owner/manager training within 180 days of PLCB approval of appointment (unless completed within the prior two years) and renew every two years — confirmed on the PLCB RAMP Training page and 40 Pa. Code § 5.203. A newly appointed manager acting on the page skips a mandatory training obligation.
• 2026-07-12 — pa-alcohol-server — who must get (medium)
  The page said 'staff working an off-premises catered function must have completed server/seller training within the two years before the event.' The PLCB RAMP Training page and 40 Pa. Code § 5.204 scope the duty to every employee whose primary responsibility at the catered function is to sell/serve alcoholic beverages or check identifications. 'Staff working' sweeps in cooks, setup crew, and non-alcohol cashiers — telling readers they need a credential the rule does not require of them.
• 2026-07-12 — ri-alcohol-server — exemptions (medium)
  The page states Rhode Island's training duty only by license class (Class B, C, D, J, N, P) and says nothing about who does NOT need it. R.I. Gen. Laws § 3-7-6.1 is scoped to those on-premise-type license classes — Class A package/liquor stores are absent from the mandate (DBR's own page identifies Class A as liquor stores), and no statute or DBR page extends server training to Class A staff. The class-code scoping is technically accurate but illegible; an off-premise liquor-store clerk reading 'every person who sells or serves' buys training the law does not require.
• 2026-07-12 — ri-alcohol-server — who must get (low)
  The page states the duty to carry a valid Server Permit on the premises while selling or serving (accurate per § 3-7-6.1(b)(5)) but omits the statutory cure at § 3-7-6.1(f)(4): 'Failure to have a valid server permit on their person shall not constitute a violation, provided, proof of a valid permit is provided within ten (10) days thereof.' An enforcement-mitigation detail that does not change the compliance action.
• 2026-07-12 — sc-alcohol-server — exemptions (high)
  The page said every alcohol server and manager at an on-premises-licensed business must hold the certificate, with off-premises retail clerks as the only carve-out. S.C. Code § 61-3-100(2) also excludes individuals 'employed or volunteering on a temporary basis for a one-time special event, such as a banquet, or at an event that has a temporary permit,' and individuals transferring alcohol between locations as distributors/wholesalers (scstatehouse.gov Title 61 ch. 3). Temporary special-event workers and volunteers — the population most likely to search the question — were told categorically that they need a credential the law exempts them from.
• 2026-07-12 — sc-alcohol-server — who must get (medium)
  The page defines the covered employee as one who works 'at least ten hours a week serving or selling alcohol.' The statute, § 61-3-100(7), counts hours EMPLOYED by the permittee/licensee ('employed for at least ten hours a week by a permittee or a licensee'), while SCDOR's guidance phrases it as 10 hours/week serving alcohol. The two official sources differ and the page silently adopted the narrower agency paraphrase while citing the statute as its legal basis; a 30-hour/week employee serving 5 hours/week is covered under the statutory definition but reads themselves out under the page's phrasing.
• 2026-07-12 — sc-alcohol-server — mandate detail (medium)
  The page describes the post-training certificate flow but omits the application deadline: § 61-3-130(A)(1) provides 'An individual must apply for an alcohol server certificate within six months of completing a program' (the same subsection allows a temporary certificate valid up to 30 days). A reader who defers the application past six months forfeits the certificate from that course and must retrain.
• 2026-07-12 — sd-alcohol-server — who must get (medium)
  The page's 'otherwise' construction implied a certified 18-to-20-year-old may tend bar regardless of conditions. SDCL 35-4-79.4 gates ALL selling/serving by 18-to-20-year-olds — expressly including tending bar and drawing/pouring/mixing — on the two conditions (under 50% of gross business from alcohol OR a licensee/21+ employee on premises), with certification an ADDITIONAL requirement for the bartending subset. An establishment acting on the page could let a certified 19-year-old tend bar alone at a majority-alcohol business; violation is a Class 2 misdemeanor.
• 2026-07-12 — sd-alcohol-server — mandate detail (low)
  The page quotes SDCL 35-4-79.4 extensively but omits its penalty clause: 'A violation of this section is a Class 2 misdemeanor' (sdlegislature.gov). A completeness gap that changes no compliance action the page already prescribes.
• 2026-07-12 — tn-alcohol-server — exemptions (high)
  The page's duty statement ('serve, dispense, or handle' plus an 18+ minimum) carries no exemption for underage non-serving employees. T.C.A. § 57-3-704(h) provides that a person employed under § 50-5-106(b)(2) — a 16- or 17-year-old lawfully employed at an LBD establishment who is not permitted to take orders for or serve intoxicating beverages — 'is not required to obtain a server permit.' The page implies minors cannot work at liquor-by-the-drink establishments at all, telling employers a permit is required of workers who legally cannot obtain one and do not need it.
• 2026-07-12 — tn-alcohol-server — who must get (medium)
  The page's Quick facts scope the server permit to 'liquor, wine, or high-gravity beer' (TABC's phrasing), while its own legal basis quotes T.C.A. § 57-4-203(h), which bars employing anyone 'in the serving of beer, wine or other alcoholic beverages' without a permit. A server who only pours regular beer at an LBD restaurant gets two different answers from two parts of the same page with no acknowledgment; per project rule both official sources should be stated with attribution.
• 2026-07-12 — tn-alcohol-server — county exceptions (medium)
  The page claimed local beer boards license only establishments, 'not an individual server credential.' Shelby County's official Beer Permits page states 'All employees who serve, sell, or handle beer in these establishments must also register with the Shelby County clerk' (shelbycountytn.gov/560/Beer-Permits) — an individual employee registration duty for beer establishments in unincorporated Shelby County. The no-substitute-for-the-TABC-permit clause survives; the categorical parenthetical is false in at least one county.
• 2026-07-12 — tn-alcohol-server — source urls (low)
  Source entry #5 labels the URL 'T.C.A. Sec. 57-3-704 (application requirements...)' but the URL serves Tenn. Comp. R. & Regs. chapter 0100-08, 'Rules for Professional Alcohol Server Training' — a Secretary of State rule chapter, not the statute. The facts drawn from it ($20 fee, 1-year training window, 3.5 hours) are sound; the label misattributes the document, and project convention keeps T.C.A. citations unlinked.
• 2026-07-12 — tn-alcohol-server — faq (low)
  The Quick facts 'Valid for' and FAQ 2 render the validity as a bare '2 for permits issued on or after January 1, 2025' with no unit. TABC's page states permits issued from January 1, 2025 are valid two (2) years (pre-2025 permits five years, which the page also correctly carries); the leading unit-less '2' is a generator artifact that reads as a typo.
• 2026-07-12 — ut-alcohol-server — approved provider rule (low)
  The page said 'DABS itself does not offer or sell the training.' True for the server/EASY seminars, but Utah Code § 32B-1-704 (new version effective 1/1/2026) makes retail-MANAGER training a department program: DABS shall develop the programs, may charge a participation fee by rule, and each retail manager must complete it within 30 days of hire (or license issuance, whichever is later). The blanket wording could send a manager hunting for a private provider for a course that is the department's own.
• 2026-07-12 — ut-alcohol-server — legal basis (low)
  The legal basis cites only Utah Admin. Code R523-12 (correctly scoped to the on-premise server program) while the page also makes off-premise EASY-track claims (before-work timing, 3-year renewal). The SUMH page the record cites attributes the EASY program to R523-13, a rule the page never names. The EASY claims themselves verified true on two live agency pages; this is a citation-completeness gap only.
• 2026-07-12 — vt-alcohol-server — mandate level (high)
  The page's mandate level 'voluntary' and its 'Not by law' title/description/FAQ lead contradict Vermont's own mandate: 7 V.S.A. § 213(c)(1) requires every employee involved in the delivery, sale, or serving of alcoholic beverages to complete Division-approved training BEFORE beginning and at least every 24 months, and the DLC Education page says 'All sellers and servers of alcohol and tobacco must be trained before they start working.' Vermont lacks an individual CARD, not a training mandate — the page's body states this correctly, but the classification field and the SERP-visible surfaces flatten a legal mandate into a recommendation ('no individual card' flattened to 'voluntary' by the generator/taxonomy).
• 2026-07-12 — vt-alcohol-server — faq (low)
  The Quick facts 'Valid for' and FAQ 2 render '2 (retrain at least once every 24 months).' — the raw value with no unit. The substance is correct per 7 V.S.A. § 213(c)(1) ('at least once every 24 months'); the bare '2' without 'years' is the same generator artifact seen on tn-alcohol-server.
• 2026-07-12 — wa-alcohol-server — who must get (high)
  The page folded alcohol-delivery drivers into the general 'Class 12 or Class 13 permit within 60 days of initial hire' rule. RCW 66.20.310(2)(f) requires every person whose duties include delivery under RCW 66.24.710 to have a Class 12 permit BEFORE engaging in alcohol delivery, from a course that includes the delivery-practices curriculum component — no 60-day window, and a Class 13 does not qualify. A reader delivering on a Class 13 or during a presumed grace period is violating the statute.
• 2026-07-12 — wa-alcohol-server — exemptions (high)
  The page asserts the MAST permit duty with no exemption anywhere. RCW 66.20.310(7) exempts grocery stores licensed under RCW 66.24.360 whose primary business is grocery sales (on-premises beer/wine with food incidental) 'and employees of such establishments ... from RCW 66.20.300 through 66.20.350,' except employees serving during tasting activities under RCW 66.24.363; corroborated by WAC 314-17-030 and 314-17-015. The page tells grocery-store employees they need a permit the statute exempts them from.
• 2026-07-12 — wa-alcohol-server — who must get (medium)
  The page states as flat fact that 'those who fill growlers at grocery stores must also hold a MAST permit' — the LCB MAST page's wording. RCW 66.20.310(7), as amended (2024 c 265 / 2025 c 167), exempts qualifying grocery-store employees from the permit sections except tasting-activity servers, and growler filling is not a tasting activity. Two official sources conflict and the page resolves it silently instead of stating both with attribution.
• 2026-07-12 — wa-alcohol-server — approved provider rule (low)
  The page mirrors the LCB's 'Class 12 if you are 21 or older, Class 13 if between 18 to 20.' WAC 314-17-015 sets only a floor — 'A class 13 permit holder must be at least 18 years of age' with no upper bound — and subsection (8) expressly contemplates a Class 13 holder who is 21 or older temporarily performing Class 12 functions. Agency simplification stated without the rule's actual text.
• 2026-07-12 — wa-alcohol-server — who must get (low)
  The page says all covered roles 'must hold a Class 12 or Class 13 permit,' describing the split only by age. WAC 314-17-015 maps classes to roles: Class 12 is required for anyone who manages an on-premises licensed facility, sells/mixes/draws from a dispensing device, or supervises a Class 13 holder; Class 13 covers only taking orders, delivering to customers on-premises, and opening/pouring beer or wine. Reader harm is minimal since 21+ workers receive Class 12 anyway.
• 2026-07-12 — wi-alcohol-server — who must get (medium)
  For the unsupervised-service exception, the page grants the immediate-family privilege to 'an adult immediate-family member of an individual licensee.' DOR Fact Sheet 3104 (updated Feb 24, 2026) adds 'who resides in the household,' while Wis. Stat. 125.32(2)/125.68(2) say any 18+ member of the licensee's immediate family is considered an operator's-license holder, with no residency qualifier. The two official sources differ, the page follows neither exactly, and the conflict is resolved silently.
• 2026-07-12 — wi-alcohol-server — who must get (medium)
  The page's credential list (operator's license, provisional operator's license, statewide operator's permit) never mentions the temporary operator's license. Wis. Stat. 125.17(4) allows municipalities to issue it to operators employed by or donating services to nonprofit corporations, valid 1 to 14 days, maximum 2 per person per year. A volunteer bartending a church festival — a core reader — is steered toward a full license instead of the applicable low-cost credential.
• 2026-07-12 — wi-alcohol-server — cost range (low)
  The page says 'The one dollar figure fixed by statute is the provisional operator's license,' readable as a $1 fee. The underlying fact is correct — Wis. Stat. 125.17(5)(c): the municipality sets the provisional-license fee, which 'may not exceed $15' — but the wording ('the one dollar figure' meaning 'the only dollar figure') is a generator artifact that misleads at a glance.
• 2026-07-12 — wi-alcohol-server — legal basis (low)
  The legal basis describes Wis. Stat. 125.17(1) as containing the premises-supervision rule. 125.17(1) only requires municipalities to issue operator's licenses to qualified applicants and cross-references ss. 125.32(2) and 125.68(2) — the presence/supervision duty itself lives in those sections, which the legal basis does not list. DOR Fact Sheet 3104 makes the same citation gloss, mitigating severity.
• 2026-07-12 — wv-alcohol-server — who must get (medium)
  The page presented the employment-age rules of W. Va. Code 60-7-12(a)(10) — under-16 ban, 16-to-under-21 direct supervision — as the statewide rule, but that section covers PRIVATE CLUB licensees only. For nonintoxicating-beer licensees, § 11-16-18(d) sets an 18-year floor, with 16-17-year-olds allowed to sell only at food/consumer-goods/recreation businesses that have prior commissioner approval clearly indicated on the license. A 17-year-old or their employer at a tavern/convenience store acting on the page's blanket rule could violate 11-16-18(d).
• 2026-07-12 — wv-alcohol-server — description (low)
  The frontmatter description contains a double period ('...bears responsibility for lawful service... What applies instead...' rendered with '..') from concatenating mandate detail into the description template without stripping terminal punctuation. Cosmetic but public-facing metadata.
• 2026-07-12 — wy-alcohol-server — county exceptions (high)
  The page says (in six surfaces) that Douglas requires WLD-approved server training 'within three months' of accepting employment. The codified Douglas Municipal Code 5.16.050 (incorporating Ord. No. 1010, § 1, 10-25-2021, on Municode) says 'within two (2) months' — of obtaining a new/transfer license, on renewal application, or of accepting covered employment — and requires certifications be kept current. Root of the error: the page's cited source was the unsigned AgendaCenter redline draft of Ord. 1010, whose text layer shows both figures; the audit confirmed the codified post-1010 text resolves to two months. A Douglas server relying on the page is out of compliance in month three.
• 2026-07-12 — wy-alcohol-server — county exceptions (medium)
  The page describes Cheyenne 5.12.090 as covering 'persons who sell, serve or deliver alcohol ... within ninety days.' The ordinance (Municode) also covers on-site managers and any persons providing on-site security services, tracks volunteers via the licensee's required current list, and separately requires police-chief-approved orientation training BEFORE any alcohol-related duties are performed. Managers, security staff, and volunteers in Cheyenne would read the page as excluding them, and the pre-duty orientation requirement is absent.
• 2026-07-12 — wy-alcohol-server — faq (low)
  FAQ #2 says the Wyoming card is 'valid for 3 years' and frontmatter validity years is '3'. The Liquor Division Rules Ch. 20 § 12(a)(i)(B)(VI) (eff. 03/13/2026) sets a floor, not a term: 'The certification will be for a period of not less than three (3) years.' The page body states the floor correctly twice; only the FAQ answer and the frontmatter field truncate 'not less than three years' into an exact term.
• 2026-07-12 — wy-alcohol-server — mandate level (low)
  The frontmatter mandate level is 'county-mandated' and FAQ #5 asks 'Which Wyoming counties require an alcohol server card?', but every mandate identified (Douglas, Thayne, Cheyenne; also Guernsey) is a city/town ordinance — no Wyoming county requirement was found, and the WLD guide speaks only of municipalities. The body text already says 'municipalities' correctly.
• 2026-07-12 — wy-alcohol-server — description (low)
  The frontmatter description dumps the entire ~1,600-character mandate detail into the meta description, ending with a double period ('...even where no ordinance applies..') — far beyond usable SERP length, from concatenating mandate detail into the description template without truncation or punctuation stripping.
• 2026-07-11 — la-alcohol-server, ut-food-handler, ar-alcohol-server, ca-food-handler, il-food-handler, or-food-handler — meta_description (medium)
  our build pipeline matched 'capped at $N' in cost range and emitted '$N statutory cap' into meta descriptions - a legal characterization no field ever asserted; LA's $25 cap is REGULATORY (the statute sets a higher $50 ceiling, and the page body said so, contradicting its own description) and Utah's $15 cap is an admin rule. Derived text now emits a neutral '$N cap'.
• 2026-07-11 — in-alcohol-server — who must get (high)
  The page said categorically that anyone who dispenses alcohol must hold an ATC Employee Permit; IC 7.1-3-18-9(d) exempts owners, and IC 7.1-3-1.5-13 puts the training duty on the PERMITTEE, not the server - the page also omitted the 3-year refresher, the 5-year recertification, the 30-day work window, and the OWI eligibility bars.
• 2026-07-11 — ar-alcohol-server — who must get (high)
  The page implied Arkansas imposes no individual duty on servers; while no one must be TRAINED, 3 CAR 1-906 requires every employee except kitchen/janitorial staff to sign the Server Awareness Form before selling alcohol, and a missing form is an actively enforced Class C violation.
• 2026-07-11 — or-food-handler — who must get (medium)
  The page omitted OAR 333-175-0091(2)'s exemption (holders of an approved food-manager certification or a registered Environmental Health Specialist are exempt from the handler card), the 75% minimum assessment score, and the fee rules - a new fee is allowed per retake, so the $10 is not a lifetime cap.
• 2026-07-11 — tx-electrician, oh-electrician — reciprocity (medium)
  Two of the highest-intent electrician pages carried zero reciprocity content, omitting TDLR's Jun 5, 2026 TX-OH master electrician reciprocity agreement (under HB 11) and the full master and journeyman partner lists.
• 2026-07-11 — mi-hvac — requirements (high)
  MCL 339.5807(1) makes the eligibility routes DISJUNCTIVE ('meets 1 or more of the following'); the page rendered them as conjunctive, telling a contractor who has held HVAC-(b) for 3+ years they must ALSO document 6,000 hours in the added classification. Verified against the statute.
• 2026-07-11 — mi-hvac — requirements (medium)
  Page says HVAC-(b) is the prerequisite for ductwork, limited/unlimited heating and refrigeration classes; MCL 339.5807(1)(b)(i)-(iv) give alternates (a refrigeration-(d) holder may add (f) or (h); a limited-heating-(e) holder may add (g)).
• 2026-07-11 — mi-hvac — fees (medium)
  Veteran fee waiver omits DEPENDENTS entirely (MCL 339.5417(c)) and narrows the discharge type, excluding general-under-honorable.
• 2026-07-11 — mi-hvac — requirements (medium)
  The military-experience claim (MCL 339.5807(3)-(4)) appears in none of the five cited source urls; legal basis points at a LARA notice PDF, not the statute text.
• 2026-07-11 — mi-hvac — ce hours (low)
  Page: 'LARA states ... not required to take code update or continuing education courses'. LARA's page says only 'code update courses'.
• 2026-07-11 — mi-hvac — meta_description (low)
  Title asserts a 'Michigan HVAC Technician License' Michigan does not issue, and renders the disjunctive '3 years OR 6,000 hours' as a flat '6,000 Hours'.
• 2026-07-11 — va-hvac — fees (high)
  Page states a $150 DPOR application fee; the live DPOR form (A501-2710EXLIC v8, dated 07/01/2026) charges $171.75. The $150 is the regulatory BASE in 18VAC50-30-90, not the amount payable. Our cached PDF was stale - a genuine board-side change.
• 2026-07-11 — va-hvac — fees (high)
  Card exchange stated as $110; the live DPOR form charges $131.75.
• 2026-07-11 — va-hvac — requirements (high)
  An HVAC contractor's Qualified Individual must hold a MASTER tradesman license (Va. Code 54.1-1100; DPOR A501-27EXINFO). The word 'master' never appears in the page's contractor context, implying any HVAC tradesman card qualifies a firm. QI experience tiers (1/3/5 yrs by class) also absent.
• 2026-07-11 — va-hvac — fees (medium)
  Technology fee mischaracterised: presented as '$7.25 applies to DPOR credentials', but it is $7.25 PER YEAR across the 3-year term (=$21.75, which is why $150 becomes $171.75), applies only to 'certain fees', and sunsets 30 Jun 2030 (omitted).
• 2026-07-11 — va-hvac — requirements (medium)
  FAQ states Class A/B/C purely by contract value, dropping Va. Code 54.1-1100's independent 12-month aggregate trigger (a firm doing many small jobs totalling $400k/yr is Class B, not Class C).
• 2026-07-11 — fl-hvac — requirements (high)
  Insurance requirement entirely absent: F.S. 489.115(5)(a) makes $100,000 liability + $25,000 property damage a prerequisite to issuance and renewal (verified verbatim on the DBPR FAQ).
• 2026-07-11 — fl-hvac — requirements (high)
  Financial responsibility absent: DBPR requires a credit report showing a FICO score of 660 or higher, else a 14-hour financial responsibility course (verified verbatim on the DBPR FAQ).
• 2026-07-11 — fl-hvac — requirements (high)
  Fingerprints and statewide criminal background check absent (F.S. 489.115(6),(9); the live CILB checklist requires Livescan via an FDLE-registered provider).
• 2026-07-11 — fl-hvac — ce hours (high)
  CE subject areas wrong: page lists 'wind mitigation', which DBPR applies only to General/Building/Residential/Roofing/Specialty Structure/Glass contractors - NOT air-conditioning - and omits the mandatory Advanced Module Building Code hour.
• 2026-07-11 — fl-hvac — meta_description (medium)
  Title/description assert an 'HVAC Technician License in Florida' while the record's own first requirement says no separate state journeyman or technician HVAC license exists.
• 2026-07-11 — fl-hvac — exam (medium)
  Exam waiver omitted: F.S. 489.113(1) lets a building-construction baccalaureate with GPA of 3.0 or higher sit only the business and finance portion.
• 2026-07-11 — fl-hvac — ce hours (medium)
  First-cycle CE carve-out omitted (license issued under 12 months before Aug 31 = 0 hours; 1-2 years = 7 hours).
• 2026-07-11 — fl-hvac — renewal cycle (medium)
  Registered-contractor renewal date missing (Aug 31 of odd years); the page sells the registered path but gives only the certified date.
• 2026-07-11 — fl-hvac — legal basis (medium)
  application url 301s to the site root; the real checklist is the CheckListDetail.asp URL. A redirect-following link checker sees 200 and misses it.
• 2026-07-11 — fl-hvac — requirements (medium)
  EPA Section 608 block is entirely unsourced - no epa.gov or CFR URL in the record, and '608' appears in none of the seven cited sources.
• 2026-07-11 — fl-hvac — legal basis (medium)
  All legal basis and source urls pin the 2024 statute edition; the 2025 edition is live and 489.105 was amended between them.
• 2026-07-11 — fl-hvac — requirements (low)
  'Good moral character' (F.S. 489.111(2)(b)) omitted.
• 2026-07-11 — fl-hvac — fees (low)
  Class A fee cited to CILB 5-H, which is the Class-B form; Class A is CILB 5-G. Value right, authority wrong.
• 2026-07-11 — fl-hvac — fees (low)
  Veteran and National Guard fee waiver/discount omitted; fees stated categorically.
• 2026-07-11 — fl-hvac — requirements (low)
  F.S. 489.117(2)(a) bars new registrations based on local licenses from jurisdictions lacking disciplinary oversight - qualifier omitted.
• 2026-07-11 — ga-hvac — requirements (high)
  'since Sept 30, 1983 all applicants must take the exam and qualify' - this date appears in NO cited source, in no chapter of Ga. Comp. R. and Regs. 121, and on no board page. A specific date with no source: a fabricated fact, exactly what the source-or-silence rule exists to prevent.
• 2026-07-11 — ga-hvac — requirements (high)
  Class II (non-restricted) applicants must ALSO submit proof of Manuals N&Q or Carrier Design 1, 2 and 3; the page gives Class II the same package as Class I, so a Class II applicant files an incomplete application.
• 2026-07-11 — ga-hvac — requirements (medium)
  EPA certification must be 'Type II or higher' per the board FAQ; the page implies any Section 608 certificate qualifies.
• 2026-07-11 — ga-hvac — requirements (medium)
  Class I/II BTU caps given without r. 121-3-.04(1)'s classifying test ('each complete system in a single installation is to be considered an individual job').
• 2026-07-11 — ga-hvac — ce hours (medium)
  CE stated flatly; r. 121-4-.03(2) exempts licensees of under one year, and (7) allows waiver for hardship, disability or illness.
• 2026-07-11 — ga-hvac — requirements (medium)
  Business registration's mandatory display duty omitted (r. 121-3-.05: number on both sides of the vehicle in two-inch characters, in advertisements, and on all invoices and proposals).
• 2026-07-11 — ga-hvac — reciprocity (medium)
  Page is silent on reciprocity though the board states plainly that reciprocity is not offered at this time, and r. 121-2-.03 provides an endorsement pathway.
• 2026-07-11 — ga-hvac — requirements (medium)
  Application package omits the notarised application, Secure and Verifiable Document, and Affidavit of Citizenship required by both official checklists.
• 2026-07-11 — ga-hvac — meta_description (medium)
  Title/description assert an 'HVAC Technician License in Georgia'; the record's own sourced fact is that Georgia licenses the conditioned air CONTRACTOR, not individual technicians.
• 2026-07-11 — ga-hvac — legal basis (low)
  Re-exam rule attributed to 121-2-.06; the operative rule is 121-3-.03 (121-2-.06 only sets course qualifications).
• 2026-07-11 — ga-hvac — requirements (low)
  Military/veteran pathways omitted (r. 121-2-.12; veterans preference points and expedited processing).
• 2026-07-11 — ny-hvac — requirements (high)
  Workers' compensation insurance is mandatory for the NYC HIC license (DCWP denies the application without it); the word 'insurance' never appears on the page.
• 2026-07-11 — ny-hvac — requirements (high)
  Fingerprints and processing fee omitted (DCWP: all principals must book with IdentoGO, service code 1585BH) - while the page itemises every other cost.
• 2026-07-11 — ny-hvac — requirements (medium)
  DCWP requires EPA RRP and Lead Abatement certification; the page discusses only EPA 608 (refrigerants), so a 608-holder reasonably concludes the EPA box is ticked.
• 2026-07-11 — ny-hvac — who must get (medium)
  'In the suburbs and upstate, HVAC is licensed at the COUNTY level through consumer-affairs offices' is generalised from ONE sourced county (Nassau) - the record's own blockers field admits the others were never scraped - and Westchester's agency is the Department of Consumer PROTECTION.
• 2026-07-11 — ny-hvac — requirements (medium)
  The proof-of-the-negative misdescribes its own source: the NY DOS licensing page is not 'the full list' of state-licensed professions (it carries a catch-all), and DOS is not the state's occupational-licensing agency (NYSED's Office of the Professions is). The conclusion survives; the evidence for it does not.
• 2026-07-11 — ny-hvac — requirements (low)
  Trade waste / BIC Class One Self Hauler registration omitted (directly relevant to hauling out old furnaces and condensers), plus Sales Tax ID and Contractual Compliance Agreement.
• 2026-07-11 — tx-hvac — who must get (high)
  The entire statutory exemption scheme is absent - the word 'exempt' appears 0 times on the page, while FAQ 1 answers 'Do you need a license to do HVAC work in Texas?' with a flat 'Yes.' Tex. Occ. Code ch. 1302 Subchapter B lists 11+ exemptions (homeowners, maintenance employees, utility employees, portable ductless AC of 3 tons or under, MVAC, vent hoods, manufactured homes). TDLR even has a dedicated exemptions page that is not in source urls.
• 2026-07-11 — tx-hvac — requirements (high)
  Experience 'exceptions' misstated: education only SUBSTITUTES a portion (4-yr degree = 24 months; 2-yr = 12; 1-yr certificate = 6). Only utility, licensed-engineer, industrial or military experience can satisfy the ENTIRE 48 months. The page tells a mechanical-engineering graduate they are excepted when they still owe 24 months.
• 2026-07-11 — tx-hvac — requirements (medium)
  THE PRIOR FIX WAS A MIS-ADJUDICATION: 'Each license may only have one endorsement' was deleted on Jul 10 as invented, but TDLR states it verbatim on contractor-apply.htm (independently verified). Our own defect-fixing process REMOVED A TRUE FACT.
• 2026-07-11 — tx-hvac — requirements (medium)
  license types lists three endorsements; Tex. Occ. Code 1302.254(a) provides two ('environmental air conditioning' and 'commercial refrigeration and process cooling or heating'), corroborated by TDLR's exam list.
• 2026-07-11 — tx-hvac — requirements (medium)
  Government-employment route to the practical-experience qualification omitted (1302.255(e)(2)).
• 2026-07-11 — tx-hvac — requirements (medium)
  Page invites 16-year-olds to register but omits 1302.503(b): a technician under 18 must at all times work under DIRECT supervision.
• 2026-07-11 — tx-hvac — requirements (medium)
  Insurance stated categorically; 1302.102(b) lets the executive director WAIVE it for a licensee who does not contract for the public.
• 2026-07-11 — tx-hvac — meta_description (medium)
  Meta description advertises 'PSI exam, 8 hrs CE' - but a Registered Technician needs NO exam and CE is contractor-only. The description contradicts the record.
• 2026-07-11 — tx-hvac — renewal cycle (low)
  renewal cycle and ce hours concatenate with no sentence break, so the live page reads as if technicians owe 8 hours of CE.
• 2026-07-11 — nc-hvac — exam (high)
  Page asserts 'the Board does not publish the passing score'. 21 NCAC 50 .0305 publishes it: a grade of 70. The scraper cited the rules container and never opened it - the page denies a fact its own cited source publishes.
• 2026-07-11 — nc-hvac — who must get (high)
  G.S. 87-21(c)'s minor repairs/replacements exemption omitted - replacing a compressor, coil, contactor, motor or capacitor in an installed system needs no license. This is the core HVAC service carve-out, and the page answers 'Do you need a license?' with a flat 'Yes.'
• 2026-07-11 — nc-hvac — requirements (high)
  H-2/H-3 tonnage threshold stated flatly; G.S. 87-21(a)(3) puts systems in single-family residences in H-3 REGARDLESS OF SIZE, so a system over 15 tons in a house is H-3, not H-2.
• 2026-07-11 — nc-hvac — fees (medium)
  Technician annual-fee condition is INVERTED vs 21 NCAC 50 .1102(j) (the $75 rate applies to technicians LISTED UNDER a licensed contractor; the page says 'not held under a contractor'). Two board documents conflict - must be resolved with the Board.
• 2026-07-11 — nc-hvac — requirements (medium)
  45-day license-activation deadline omitted; missing it forces a full retest.
• 2026-07-11 — nc-hvac — fees (medium)
  $150 activation fee stated flatly; G.S. 87-22 halves it for applicants who pass on or after October 1.
• 2026-07-11 — nc-hvac — fees (medium)
  Second-qualifier contractor rate ($75, 21 NCAC 50 .1102(d)) omitted; the page says $150 flat.
• 2026-07-11 — nc-hvac — requirements (medium)
  'At least one listed qualified individual regularly on active duty' drops 21 NCAC 50 .0404's quantified standard (the lesser of 1,500 hours annually, or all hours during which the activities are carried out).
• 2026-07-11 — nc-hvac — meta_description (medium)
  Title welds the CONTRACTOR hour count (4,000) to the word 'Technician'; the record's own technician figures are 3,000/2,500 and it states the credential is a contractor license.
• 2026-07-11 — ca-hvac — requirements (high)
  The lede stated 'California licenses HVAC technicians through CSLB' - the exact opposite of the record's own central fact (CSLB licenses CONTRACTORS; an employee paid wages is expressly exempt). Root cause: a hardcoded template in our build pipeline, so it contaminated every page in the cluster.
• 2026-07-11 — ca-hvac — requirements (high)
  The asbestos open-book examination is omitted (BPC 7058.5(b)): CSLB cannot issue a license without it. A reader following this page passes both PSI exams and is then blocked at issuance.
• 2026-07-11 — ca-hvac — requirements (medium)
  Bond of Qualifying Individual - a SECOND $25,000 bond, required when the license is qualified by an RME, or by an RMO owning under 10% of voting stock - omitted.
• 2026-07-11 — ca-hvac — requirements (medium)
  Education credit is tiered, not a flat three years: an A.A. earns max 1.5 yrs; a four-year degree in listed fields max 2 yrs; only an apprenticeship certificate or a construction-technology/engineering degree earns 3. An A.A. holder is told they qualify with 1 year of field experience when CSLB requires 2.5.
• 2026-07-11 — ca-hvac — exam (medium)
  The 18-month exam eligibility window is absent: fail to pass within 18 months and the application is void, requiring a new application and new fees.
• 2026-07-11 — ca-hvac — meta_description (medium)
  Title and description assert an 'HVAC Technician License in California', a credential the record states does not exist.
• 2026-07-11 — ca-hvac — fees (low)
  'Non-refundable' asserted three times; the word 'refund' appears in none of the ten cited CSLB sources.
• 2026-07-11 — ca-hvac — legal basis (low)
  Cites the 2025 CSLB Law Book while the 2026 edition is live (substantively identical for 7048 - link rot, not a wrong value).
• 2026-07-11 — ca-hvac — who must get (low)
  Advertising carve-out: CSLB's AB 2622 bulletin permits unlicensed advertising for work up to $1,000 with a disclosure; the page says the exemption does not apply to anyone who advertises.
• 2026-07-11 — oh-hvac — meta_description (high)
  Title, H1, meta description and body line 1 all assert an Ohio 'HVAC technician license'; the record itself says Ohio does not issue one. OCILB licenses commercial CONTRACTORS and local building/health departments regulate residential.
• 2026-07-11 — oh-hvac — requirements (high)
  The state hub row rendered 'HVAC Technician | State license required' for Ohio - flatly false, and on the highest-traffic surface. Driven by the state licenses at state level boolean, which cannot express 'the state licenses commercial contractors; municipalities license residential'. A DATA-MODEL gap, not a typo.
• 2026-07-11 — oh-hvac — fees (medium)
  The $60 reactivation fee is attributed to OAC 4101:16-2-09, which contains no such fee; it is 4101:16-2-12(E)(3). The CE catch-up rule and the in-renewal-period waiver are also omitted.
• 2026-07-11 — oh-hvac — requirements (medium)
  The actual eligibility documentation gate is absent: five consecutive years of tax documents PLUS one of four proofs (permits, journeyman card, apprenticeship certificate, or 40 hours of non-duplicated code CE). This is the requirement applicants actually fail.
• 2026-07-11 — oh-hvac — requirements (medium)
  Four official qualifying pathways collapsed into a vague catch-all: Ohio government inspector (5 yrs), owner/partner/employee of a licensed commercial contractor (5 yrs), uniformed services, and the out-of-state licensee route.
• 2026-07-11 — oh-hvac — ce hours (medium)
  CE: the page states 10 classroom hours as settled fact, but OCILB's own licensee page publishes 8 hours for one-year renewals and 24 for three-year, with no condition attached. Two official sources conflict and the page silently picks one.
• 2026-07-11 — oh-hvac — exam (medium)
  Exam section omits the passing score (70% on each part), the 60-day retake wait, and the five-failure reapplication cap.
• 2026-07-11 — oh-hvac — requirements (medium)
  EPA Section 608 claim is unsourced - all 11 cited URLs are Ohio-only, with no EPA or CFR citation.
• 2026-07-11 — oh-hvac — reciprocity (medium)
  Page carries zero reciprocity content though OCILB publishes an HVAC reciprocity list (AL, KY, LA, MS, SC, TN, WV - and notably NOT Texas for HVAC).
• 2026-07-11 — ga-hvac — requirements (high)
  THE REPAIR DELETED A TRUE FACT ON MY INSTRUCTION. I called 'since Sept 30, 1983 all applicants must take the exam' a FABRICATION. It is verbatim in O.C.G.A. 43-14-8, along with 'including such vocation at the local level' - which I also had deleted. The audit searched the rules and board pages; the repair searched the rules and board pages; neither opened the statute the record already cited. Restored.
• 2026-07-11 — ca-hvac — fees (high)
  The repair deleted 'non-refundable' from the $450 CSLB fee, reasoning that 'refund' appears in no CSLB source. It is in the statute the record already cited: BPC 7138, titled 'Nonrefundability' - a fee under sec. 7137 (which sets the $450) 'shall not be refunded'. YMYL-money: a reader could not tell an abandoned application forfeits $450. Restored.
• 2026-07-11 — oh-hvac — requirements (high)
  The repair dropped OAC 4101:16-2-01 claiming it 'could not verify' the rule's contents. The rule is current (eff. Sept 6 2024) and carries three true facts, including 'Credit may be given for time in active military service' toward the 5-year requirement. A veteran with 3 civilian + 2 service years fitted NEITHER route the repaired page listed. Restored, with two enumerated pathways the repair claimed to add but did not.
• 2026-07-11 — tx-hvac — requirements (medium)
  The repair SILENTLY RESOLVED a live conflict between two official sources: Tex. Occ. Code 1302.254(a) gives TWO endorsements; TDLR's own application page - the link the record hands the reader - lists THREE. The record asserted 'two' with no attribution. Now states both and attributes each. The repair also invented a statutory cite for the advertising ban (the fact is TDLR's; ch. 1302 does not state it).
• 2026-07-11 — va-hvac — renewal cycle (medium)
  The repair claimed DPOR's renewal notice states 'the amount due', pin-cited to 18VAC50-30-120(H). That rule says only that the board mails a notice 'outlining procedures for renewal'. An inference about DPOR's billing practice wearing a citation that does not support it - and load-bearing, because the record deliberately publishes no payable renewal figure.
• 2026-07-11 — fl-hvac — requirements (medium)
  The repair spelled out Class A's upgrade route, which made the record's inherited 'same qualifying methods as Class A' newly FALSE for Class B: CILB 5-H's upgrade route is an active Class C license held >=1 year, not Class A's (Class B held 1 yr, or Class C held 4 yrs). A fix that created a defect in a neighbouring field.
• 2026-07-11 — fl-food-handler — who must get (high)
  The 60-day deadline is absent. Fla. Stat. 509.049(5): 'Food service employees must receive certification within 60 days after employment.' Same sentence gave us the 3-year validity we DID publish - we took half of it. The record's own notes claim it sourced the deadline; no field carries it.
• 2026-07-11 — fl-food-handler — who must get (high)
  Fla. Stat. 509.049(6)(b) exempts an establishment running a division-approved in-house training programme from the card requirement entirely - the subsection IMMEDIATELY AFTER the one we cite. Our FAQ answers 'Does Florida require a food handler card?' with 'Yes.'
• 2026-07-11 — fl-food-handler — who must get (high)
  Fla. Stat. 509.013(5)(b) excludes 11 categories from 'public food service establishment' (schools, churches, non-profits, common carriers, AHCA/DCF-licensed facilities, FDACS-permitted grocers, theaters, vending). A school-cafeteria or grocery-deli worker is not covered by Ch. 509 at all. The page states none of them.
• 2026-07-11 — fl-food-handler — who must get (medium)
  who must get is NARROWER than the rule it cites: 61C-4.023(4) covers ALL public food service employees incl. those who clean equipment and maintain premises. Statute (narrow) and rule (broad) genuinely differ - the page silently picked the narrow one while citing the broad rule as its authority.
• 2026-07-11 — fl-food-handler — meta_description (medium)
  The meta description claims 'local exceptions' (county exceptions is empty) and 'verified from Florida DBPR' - DBPR was NEVER FETCHED. Every citation is the Legislature and the FAC portal. The description invents a provenance.
• 2026-07-11 — ca-alcohol-server — who must get (high)
  ABC publishes an Exemptions list the page omits entirely: alcohol distributors doing marketing trainings, academic instructors, salon/barbershop owners serving complimentary beer or wine, and employees of a licensed plane or boat (Type 54/55).
• 2026-07-11 — ca-alcohol-server — who must get (high)
  The 60-day grace period is stated categorically but ABC says it 'is not applicable to daily licenses' - and BPC 25682(c) requires a nonprofit with a temporary daily license to have someone trained BEFORE the event.
• 2026-07-11 — ca-alcohol-server — renewal cycle (high)
  Renewal is missing entirely. CCR tit.4 s169(f): the 60-day grace period does NOT apply to renewals. s170(l): renewal requires completing the course again, re-passing the exam and paying another $3. The page's '$3' reads as a one-time total.
• 2026-07-11 — ca-alcohol-server — county exceptions (medium)
  'No county or city imposes a separate server-card rule' is an unsourced universal negative; ABC's own FAQ says twice that 'local jurisdictions may have additional requirements'.
• 2026-07-11 — ca-alcohol-server — issuing authority (medium)
  The page says ABC 'issues the certification'. BPC 25680(b) and CCR s170(h): the TRAINING PROVIDER issues it. ABC states plainly 'ABC is not issuing physical or downloadable RBS certificates.'
• 2026-07-11 — il-alcohol-server — issuing authority (high)
  The page says the training provider issues the BASSET card. ILCC's own bulletin: 'Your official 3-year BASSET certificate will be sent via email by the Illinois Liquor Control Commission. ONLY THE ILCC ISSUES OFFICIAL BASSET CERTIFICATES.' The provider issues only a 30-day temporary. A reader treats the temporary as their card and is uncertified after day 30.
• 2026-07-11 — il-alcohol-server — who must get (high)
  THE INVERSE DEFECT - THE PAGE INVENTED AN EXEMPTION. It says off-premise sellers (liquor/grocery/convenience clerks) are exempt. 235 ILCS 5/6-27.1(a) lists four carve-outs and off-premise sellers are NOT among them; ILCC's standing guidance says the opposite, and 77 Ill. Adm. Code 3500.160(a) prescribes a 3-hour course FOR off-premises sellers. We told a huge slice of the audience they are exempt when they are not.
• 2026-07-11 — il-alcohol-server — approved provider rule (medium)
  The page names the 'BASSET Card Lookup', superseded in Feb 2026 by 'BASSET Search' on the ILCC Portal. The named tool no longer exists.
• 2026-07-11 — oh-food-handler — who must get (high)
  OAC 3717-1-02.4(A)(4) exempts TEMPORARY, MOBILE and VENDING operations (plus risk levels I and II) from the manager rule. The page lists only risk I/II. A risk-level-III food truck buys a certification Ohio does not require of it.
• 2026-07-11 — oh-food-handler — issuing authority (medium)
  The page says ODH-approved providers issue the certifications. ORC 3717.09(A): 'the DIRECTOR shall certify individuals in food protection'; OAC 3701-21-25(G)(5) has providers merely DISTRIBUTE certifications received from the director.
• 2026-07-11 — oh-food-handler — who must get (medium)
  The Sept-2024 amendment added OAC 3701-21-25(K)(4): high-risk MOBILE operations need a PIC certification per license holder AT EACH EVENT. Omitted. Combined with the exemption defect, a food-truck operator gets both answers wrong.
• 2026-07-11 — ny-alcohol-server — legal basis (high)
  The ABC Law 65(6) affirmative defence is stated for 'a violation'. The statute grants it ONLY for subdivision one (underage sale) - not for serving a visibly intoxicated person - and requires the licensee to have 'diligently implemented and complied with' the programme. Both limits omitted.
• 2026-07-11 — ny-alcohol-server — approved provider rule (high)
  The FAQ (and the FAQPage JSON-LD Google renders) answered 'Where do you get an alcohol server card?' with the SCHOOL's $900 SLA application, because our build pipeline truncated the answer to 3 sentences and deleted the sentence describing the individual's path. A server was told to apply to the SLA and pay $900.
• 2026-07-11 — ny-alcohol-server — certification (medium)
  The page body says 'there is no separate state-issued card' while its FAQ and schema asked 'How long is an ALCOHOL SERVER CARD valid in New York?' - a credential NY does not issue. our build pipeline hardcoded the noun and ignored the record's own sourced `certification`.
• 2026-07-11 — nc-food-handler — approved provider rule (high)
  The page lists Prometric as an ANSI-CFP accredited CFPM program. It is not on the official ANAB-CFP directory under any status. A reader who buys a Prometric exam on our advice does not get a compliant credential. The whole vendor list is uncited and came from memory, not the directory the state links.
• 2026-07-11 — nc-food-handler — legal basis (medium)
  source #3, published under 'Sources & verification', is a Dec-2013 position statement built on the 2009 Food Code and citing rule .2652(4)(C), which no longer exists.
• 2026-07-11 — pa-food-handler — who must get (high)
  3 Pa.C.S. s6510 exempts prepackaged-only facilities, non-potentially-hazardous-food facilities, food establishments, 501(c)(3)s, volunteer fire/ambulance/religious/charitable/fraternal/veterans/civic/agricultural organisations, and youth recreational activities. The page states the manager mandate categorically with ZERO exemptions. The record's own notes admit the statute site 'was unreachable so the statute could not be read verbatim' - our egress blind spot became a live defect.
• 2026-07-11 — pa-food-handler — county exceptions (medium)
  PDA names SIX local health jurisdictions running their own programmes (Allegheny, Bucks, Chester, Montgomery, Philadelphia, State College Borough). The page names two. A Bucks/Chester/Montco/State College operator is told the state rule governs them.
• 2026-07-11 — pa-food-handler — who must get (medium)
  'Employee (handler) training is employer-optional, not state-mandated' is wrong. 7 Pa. Code s46.4 adopts the current FDA Food Code, whose s2-103.11(O) makes employee food-safety training a Priority-foundation duty of the PIC. Training IS mandated; the CREDENTIAL is not.
• 2026-07-11 — tx-alcohol-server — who must get (high)
  16 TAC s34.21 lets TABC ORDER a licensee to require ALL employees to acquire and maintain seller/server certification after repeat violations, in force until 24 clean months pass. The page says flatly 'No individual is required by state law to hold the certification' - live in the FAQPage schema. An employee under such an order IS legally required to hold it.
• 2026-07-11 — tx-alcohol-server — legal basis (high)
  The page cites '16 TAC s34.4 and s34.5'. s34.5 DOES NOT EXIST and s34.4 is 'Suspensions' - nothing to do with training or safe harbour. The safe harbour is s34.20; the training rules are Chapter 50, which the page never cites despite sourcing its validity/issuance/fee facts to it. TABC's OWN FAQ still prints the dead cites - an official-source conflict the page inherited.
• 2026-07-11 — tx-alcohol-server — exam (medium)
  16 TAC s50.29(a) requires a 120-minute course AND passing the Commission Standard Competence Test. The page presents attendance alone as sufficient - it says the student 'receives it immediately' on completing the course.
• 2026-07-10 — tn-electrician — meta_description (medium)
  tn-electrician's derived meta description advertised the 'PSI exam' - the retired vendor - while its body correctly said Tennessee moved to Prov effective Jul 1, 2026; our build pipeline derived the vendor by substring-matching a VENDORS tuple that never contained 'Prov'.
• 2026-07-10 — ky-electrician — meta_description (medium)
  ky-electrician's derived title claimed 'Pearson VUE Exam' although the Kentucky board names three approved providers (PROV, NASCLA, Pearson VUE); the same vendor-matching bug resolved ambiguity to the first vendor recognized instead of naming none.
• 2026-07-10 — va-electrician — fees (medium)
  The fee section omitted DPOR's separate $7.25-per-year Technology Fee, applied to certain fees from Jul 1, 2026 through Jun 30, 2030 (2026 HB 30), so the published cost of licensure was incomplete.
• 2026-07-10 — sc-alcohol-server — who must get (low)
  mandate detail read 'comply by May 1, 2026' - a future-tense deadline that had already passed, reading as stale to every reader; the requirement is now stated in the present tense.
• 2026-07-10 — tx-hvac — requirements (medium)
  The live tx-hvac page carried the unsourced assertion '(each license may carry one endorsement)'; TDLR's own text refers to 'the license class and endorsements that you choose' - plural - so the one-endorsement limit was invented.
• 2026-07-10 — tx-hvac — requirements (medium)
  The live tx-hvac page omitted TDLR's published minimum insurance table for ACR contractors (Class A $300k/$600k/$300k; Class B $100k/$200k/$100k), a hard licensing prerequisite.
• 2026-07-10 — ca-hvac — fees (high)
  The record claimed CSLB's $450 application fee covers the exam (the false claim sat in five places, including faq[3]); CSLB states 'Each exam is a separate fee,' paid directly to PSI at self-scheduling, and publishes no exam dollar amount - so the page now states none.
• 2026-07-10 — ny-hvac — fees (high)
  The record gave NYC DCWP's Home Improvement Contractor fee as a 'prorated $25-$100' range; the official schedule has five tiers with a $125 ceiling. The verifier had REJECTED the record, but our build pipeline.route() returned 'local' before reading the verdict, so the rejected record entered the feed anyway.
• 2026-07-10 — ga-hvac — requirements (high)
  The record omitted a genuine official eligibility requirement - Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. r. 121-3-.04(4) sets four years' experience for Class I and five for Class II - because the scraper had dismissed the figures as third-party invention.
• 2026-07-10 — in-food-handler — legal basis (medium)
  The page cited 410 IAC 7-22 - an Indiana rule that EXPIRED Jan 1, 2022 (Cornell LII still mirrors the dead text) - as operative law; the operative authority is IC 16-42-5.2 plus 410 IAC 7-26.
• 2026-07-10 — tn-food-handler — legal basis (medium)
  The page cited a superseded July-2015 rule chapter (TN's undated SoS rule path serves the 2005/2015 text at returned the page); the current chapter is the June-2026 revision, and the statutory authority range was corrected from 68-14-726 to 68-14-729.
• 2026-07-10 — wy-alcohol-server — legal basis (medium)
  The page cited Wyoming Liquor Division rules Ch. 20 Sec. 17, a section that no longer exists: the chapter was rewritten effective 03/13/2026 and server training moved to Sec. 12 (the agency's own rules page still links a 2006 PDF).
• 2026-07-10 — tx-food-handler — legal basis (low)
  The legal citation pointed at the retired texreg.sos.state.tx.us viewer, which returns returned the page but serves only a 'Site Has Moved' stub; replaced with the current TX SOS Appian TAC portal.
• 2026-07-10 — ar-alcohol-server — fees (high)
  The page said there is 'no state-set price' for Arkansas server training; the ABC's own rule (3 CAR 6-105(e), rev. 01/14/2025) imposes a $25 MAXIMUM attendance fee on each permittee and each employee, which the provider may not exceed.
• 2026-07-10 — ca-hvac — who must get (high)
  The page stated California's $1,000 minor-work exemption flatly; BPC 7048(b)-(c) void the exemption if the worker advertises as a contractor, employs helpers, or splits a larger job - so an unlicensed reader could have relied on an exemption that did not apply.
• 2026-07-10 — ut-alcohol-server — legal basis (low)
  The page cited Utah Code 32B-1-701 'to -707'; Part 7 ends at -705 (706 and 707 are 404s).
• 2026-07-10 — ga-food-handler — legal basis (low)
  The page located Georgia's Certified Food Safety Manager definition at r. 511-6-1-.02(16); it is defined at r. 511-6-1-.01(16).
• 2026-07-10 — ga-hvac — legal basis (low)
  The page's O.C.G.A. legal-basis link 301'd to a LexisNexis marketing page rather than the statute text; repointed at the real O.C.G.A. container.
• 2026-07-10 — la-alcohol-server — fees (high)
  The page body said the responsible-vendor course fee is 'capped at $50 per course by statute'; the statute (La. R.S. 26:936(B)) sets only a $50 ceiling while the regulation (LAC 55:VII.509(G)) caps the actual charge at $25 per course.
• 2026-07-10 — — legal basis (medium)
  78 legal-basis and source citations across 31 live pages (all four clusters) pointed at third-party aggregators (Justia, FindLaw, Cornell LII) instead of official government texts - a staleness carrier actively mirroring superseded and expired law; 49 replaced with official sources, 15 redundant mirrors removed, 14 left as unlinked citation text where the state publishes no free official URL.
• 2026-07-09 — wa-electrician — exam (high)
  The page said that after July 1, 2026 only completers of a registered apprenticeship are eligible for the (01) exam; in fact WAC 296-46B-945(5)'s sunset removed only the in-state hours-only path, and WAC 296-46B-945(4) + RCW 19.28.191(1)(c) still provide five routes - telling out-of-state, 16,000-hour and military candidates they were ineligible.
• 2026-07-09 — tn-electrician — reciprocity (high)
  The page published the Tennessee Board's Trade Exam Waiver Agreement as of Rev. 05/6/2025, but the Board republished it as Rev. 06/2026: Georgia was removed entirely (we were telling a Georgia electrician they could waive the Tennessee trade exam) and South Carolina expanded from commercial-only to Electrical (CE).
• 2026-07-09 — ca-electrician — exam (medium)
  The exam section pointed candidates at PSI's retired scheduling line (888-818-5831); exams taken on/after June 1, 2026 are administered by CPS HR Consulting and scheduled through Pearson VUE, within one year of the eligibility notice.
• 2026-07-06 — ny-food-handler, hi-food-handler — who must get (high)
  The generator string-matched a free-text mandate level field, so ny-food-handler asserted 'New York requires a Food Handler Card' (plus an FAQ answer of 'Yes.') when its own data said there is no statewide mandate (county-mandated, Monroe County only), and hi-food-handler asserted a blanket requirement when Hawaii mandates it only for the person in charge.