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 The log includes defects in unpublished drafts caught before going live as well as defects found on live pages — both count.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.

357 corrections logged from July 6, 2026 to July 29, 2026 (380 page instances) — 91 high · 170 medium · 96 low severity — 357 fixed.

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 licence 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 Both were true under SB 125 and false from July 1 2026: SB 553 repealed and re-enacted the chapter, display of licenses is now 43-14-18, and 43-14-13 is now the plumbing-contractor licensing section.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 returns the full verbatim text to a plain fetch (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 a successful response) 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 (site TCP-refuses WebFetch/curl). 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 — curl geo-403s): '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 curl/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 curl fetch). 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). a successful response 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 licence (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 licence 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 (licence 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 licences 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 licence (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 licence. 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 licence-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 licence.
• 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 licence 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 licence 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 licence 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 licence 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 licence 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 a successful response); 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 a successful response 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.