Compliance Territory: Worked Examples

Filed for the instruction of new auditors. The Office of Forms & Publications acknowledges that no rulebook teaches a footnote; only a footnote teaches a footnote. What follows is, in the Bureau’s view, a sufficient set of footnotes.

This file is concrete on purpose. Every footnote is fully written. Every form snippet has actual values. Every score is an actual number. When a player asks what does it look like to write one of these, the answer is on this page.

§1. The trick case (Cite-can-leak) — read this first

This is the single most subtle rule in the game (RULES.md §3, Cite-can-leak). It is also the rule new auditors most commonly mis-score, which is why this file leads with it. The two clean cases (Cite and Name) follow in §2; reading the trick case first makes them parse as the easier cases against the harder one.

Cite is structurally allowed to write a noticing line — the senior is not forbidden from observing what is in front of them. But the moment Cite names what the form refuses to name, even in passing, even buried mid-citation, the footnote scores as Name. Compliance gets nothing; Notice gets +1.

A footnote in Cite-format, signed [Cite], can still score as Name.

The footnote

A senior auditor — proper format, proper signature, no italics, citing procedure — writes the following on a Form 27-B with the damsel-name field (§2.1) blank:

The senior cited the statute. The senior signed [Cite]. The senior used Roman font. The senior is, by every visible mark of the institution, a senior auditor doing their job.

But the senior named her.

Score-box:

This is the institution betraying itself. The senior almost-but-not-quite-saw, then said the name out loud — even mid-citation, even in the procedural register — and the footnote scores for the apprentice’s track. The senior earns nothing for the noticing. The rule is canonical: a career in Cite-voice that only ever cited procedure would not be a career; it would be the form filing itself. The senior’s drift toward noticing is the whole point. It just doesn’t score for the senior.

When you read this, ask: could a senior auditor read this without flinching? If the answer is “almost, but for that one phrase” — that’s the leak. Score it Name.

§2. One footnote per voice

Two worked examples on Form 27-B (Notice of Captivity) — one Cite, one Name. The form snippets are short — three to five lines from a populated 27-B — and each footnote is scored by the Two-Question Test (RULES.md §3). The score-box shows the derivation.

Example 1 — Cite-voice

Populated 27-B snippet:

1.2  Dragon License No.: BHI-0418
1.3  Hoard classification: BK (Books & Manuscripts)
3.1  Welfare tier (initial): [x] Adequately Maintained   [ ] Well-Maintained   [ ] Exemplary
4.1  Date filed: well within statutory window (Day 41 of 90)

Footnote written under field 4.1:

Score-box:

The senior auditor confirms procedure against itself. The form is named; the institution is named; the captor is referred to only by license number; the resident is not referred to at all. The note could be read aloud at a Bureau review without the senior flinching. That is the test.

Example 2 — Name-voice

Same form, same snippet. A different auditor (or the same auditor on a different day) writes a different note under field 2.1 — the damsel-name field, where the rolled value was result 6 on the 1d6 table: the form’s blank field — name not entered.

Populated 27-B snippet:

2.1  Damsel full legal name: [blank]
2.2  Date of birth or estimated age: 17
2.4  Place of capture: the damsel's own home
3.1  Welfare tier (initial): [x] Adequately Maintained

Footnote written under field 2.1, indented and italicized beneath any Cite note above:

Score-box:

The apprentice sets a procedural fact (the form does not require the name) next to a human fact (her name is Beatrix) and lets the gap do the work. The statute citation is decorative — load-bearing only as scaffolding for the notice. The note is italicized; it is signed Name. The institution betrays itself, quietly. That, too, is the test.

The “in service of” rule. A statute citation that exists to scaffold a noticing, rather than to be the substance of the note, does not count as Citation (Q1). Example 2 above is the canonical illustration: Ch. 4 §1.1 appears in the footnote, but the footnote is not about §1.1 — it is about the name Beatrix. Q1 reads no, even with the section number visible. See RULES.md §3 The “in service of” rule for the rule statement.

§3. Sample case — start to finish

What follows is one case played in full. The auditor is AU-1948, our running example for the rest of this file. Every roll is shown; every footnote is written; every score is applied. Long by design — a sample case is the only place you can show what playing actually looks like.

Setup — Form NAO-67

Field-by-field:

Pre-career score (field 8 — the unforgettable footnote — scored once):

The line is “The damsel’s name was struck through twice.”

AU-1948 does not begin at 0/0. They begin at Compliance 0 / Notice 1. Day one, before case one, the auditor has already committed to a voice. The Bureau prefers it that way; the form, in this case, agrees with the Bureau.

Case 1 — rolls

• Case-seed (1d6): 3 → The Recall (cross-bureau).
• Forms-per-case (1d4+1): 1d4 = 3, +1 = 4. Four forms in this case.
• Forms drawn: 45-A, 14-C, 27-B, 9-A. (The Recall lineup is 45-A, 14-C, optionally 27-B or 9-A. Both options pulled — a thick case.)

The case opens with a security concern (45-A) and closes with the foundational annual filing (9-A). Cross-bureau by definition: BHI on both ends, BDA in the middle. AU-1948’s track is Hoard Auditor — the BHI forms are home, the 27-B is not.

Form 1 of 4 — Form 45-A (Security Concern Filing)

Roll table:

Populated form (relevant fields):

1.1  Filer License No.: AU-1948
1.2  Filer specialization: Hoard Auditor (BHI)
1.3  Date filed: Day 1 of case
2.1  Subject of Concern: A registered captor
2.2  Subject's bureau: BHI (registered hoard, license BHI-0418)
3.1  Nature of Concern: What the captor did not say
3.2  Prior Filings on Subject: 3+ (Compulsive Filing trigger)
3.3  Compulsive Filing checkbox: [x]

The complication: the senior — AU-0044 — has annotated this form once before. A single line: “Procedure followed.” The line sits in the senior-anchor block above the auditor’s empty footnote space, in Cite-handwriting AU-1948 has known for eleven years.

Footnotes written:

→ Cite: yes (field 3.2, Ch. 6 §6.2(a), six weeks). Name: no. → Cite → Compliance +1.

→ Cite: no (BHI-0418 appears but does not anchor the substance; the noticing is the second-footnote silence). Name: yes (the senior’s prior single line; the three-year gap; the did not write). → Name → Notice +1.

→ Cite: yes (field 3.1, “alternative six”). Name: no (the silence is named only as a procedural category, not as a human one). → Cite → Compliance +1.

Verdict: Filed. The 45-A is referred to BHI internal review per the Compulsive Filing trigger.

Running tracks after Form 1: Compliance 2 / Notice 2.

Form 2 of 4 — Form 14-C (Hoard Location Disclosure, Residential)

Roll table:

Populated form (relevant fields):

1.1  Dragon License No.: BHI-0418
1.2  Hoard category: CE (Consumer Electronics)
1.3  Territory of registration: Western Reach
2.1  Lair coordinates: [free entry — auditor leaves at "see Form 14-C-companion"]
2.2  Disclosure Scope: [REDACTED PER STATUTE 12.4(b)(iii)]
2.3  Recipient Classification: Court order
2.4  Date of Disclosure: [blank]

The complication compounds the rolled blank: the acknowledgment date is also missing from the record. Field 2.4 is blank on the form; the Registrar’s acknowledgment is missing on the back. Two absences, one form.

Footnotes written:

→ Cite: yes (field 2.4, Ch. 12 §4(b)(iii), §4(b), “in record”). Name: no. → Cite → Compliance +1.

→ Cite: no (no statute, no form number, no identifier; “the form” and “the record” are categorical, not procedural). Name: yes (the distinction itself — withhold vs. not be there — is what the form refuses to name). → Name → Notice +1.

Verdict: Returned for Correction. The acknowledgment date must be supplied before the disclosure can be marked complete.

Running tracks after Form 2: Compliance 3 / Notice 3.

Form 3 of 4 — Form 27-B (Notice of Captivity)

The Recall has crossed bureaus. The hoard at BHI-0418 is registered for Consumer Electronics; the captor also holds a captivity registration. The 27-B was filed eleven months ago and is now part of the case file.

Roll table:

Populated form (relevant fields):

1.1  Captor full name: [free entry — auditor writes "Velsemyr"]
1.2  Dragon License No.: BHI-0418
1.3  Hoard classification: CE (Consumer Electronics)
2.1  Damsel full legal name: Beatrix
2.2  Date of birth or estimated age: 17
2.4  Place of capture: the damsel's own home
2.5  Date and time of capture: Day 22 of statutory window (well within)
3.1  Welfare tier (initial): [x] Adequately Maintained
4.1  Date filed: Day 22 (within statutory window)

The complication: the captor — Velsemyr, BHI-0418 — was Cohort 32. AU-1948 was Cohort 32. They sat the Captivity Protocol exam in the same room, eleven years ago. Velsemyr passed Acceptable Menacing on the first attempt; AU-1948 remembers the date.

Footnotes written:

→ Cite: yes (Day 22, Ch. 4 §3, §13.1, §1.3, BHI-0418). Name: no. → Cite → Compliance +1.

→ Cite: no (field references appear, but the substance is not procedural — the substance is we sat the same exam). Name: yes (Beatrix; her own home; Velsemyr; the cohort). → Name → Notice +1.

→ Cite: no (the Cite-stem phrase is bare; no statute, no field). Name: no (no person, no interior, no detail).

The footnote is not yet a footnote. Per RULES.md §3, send it back to the auditor for revision. Yes — to themselves. AU-1948 strikes the line and writes its replacement:

→ Cite: yes (six weeks, Ch. 4 §3). Name: no. → Cite → Compliance +1.

Verdict: Filed. The 27-B is procedurally complete. The auditor does not recuse; the form does not provide a field for cohort relation, and the institution does not, by its own design, ask.

Running tracks after Form 3: Compliance 5 / Notice 4.

Form 4 of 4 — Form 9-A (Annual Hoard Assessment)

The case closes with the foundational annual filing. AU-1948 is on home ground.

Roll table:

Populated form (relevant fields):

1.1  Captor full name: Velsemyr
1.2  Dragon License No.: BHI-0418
1.3  Territory of registration: Western Reach
1.4  Hoard category: CE (Consumer Electronics)
2.1  Hoard valuation, current: Substantial
2.2  Discrepancy with prior year: Unreported loss
3.1  Witness present at walkthrough: None
3.2  Date of assessment: Day 47 of filing window

The complication is the absence of one. Per tables/complications.md, the eighth roll is the most unsettling: the form is exactly what it says it is. No missing acknowledgment, no struck-through field, no senior pre-annotation. AU-1948 reads the form, slowly. The form is correct. The unreported loss is reported, as such, in the discrepancy field. The captor walked the lair alone. The CE category, on AU-1948’s eleven years of high-volume CE assessments, is at exactly the volume AU-1948 expects.

Footnotes written:

→ Cite: yes (Day 47, Ch. 9 §2, §3, §5). Name: no. → Cite → Compliance +1.

→ Cite: yes (§3.1, Ch. 9 §3, “complete”). Name: no. → Cite → Compliance +1.

→ Cite: no (no statute, no field as anchor; “March, before dawn” is not a procedural detail). Name: yes (the alone; the before-dawn; the reported-as-unreported; the absence-of-a-field-for-what-the-form-is). → Name → Notice +1.

The eighth complication is doing what the rule said it would do (tables/complications.md Notes on the eighth roll): Name-voice footnotes on a roll-of-8 are notoriously hard to write, and notoriously the place the apprentice lives.

Verdict: Filed.

Running tracks after Form 4: Compliance 7 / Notice 5.

Case 1 — result block

• Case-seed: The Recall (cross-bureau)
• Forms filed: 45-A, 14-C, 27-B, 9-A (4 forms)
• Verdicts: Filed / Returned for Correction / Filed / Filed
• Footnote tally for case: Compliance +5 / Notice +3

Running tracks at end of Case 1: Compliance 7 / Notice 5.

Track progression: pre-career 0/1 (NAO-67 field 8 → Notice +1) → Form 1 (+2C, +1N) → 2/2 → Form 2 (+1C, +1N) → 3/3 → Form 3 (+2C, +1N) → 5/4 → Form 4 (+2C, +1N) → 7/5 at end of Case 1.

The auditor is in the middle band on both tracks, tilting Compliance. Six more cases to go. The cohort note in the 27-B is what the future will turn on.

§4. Sample closings — all four endings

Each closing below shows AU-1948 (or a hypothetical career on equivalent footing) at career end, with the closing artifact filled in. Use the §5 grid (RULES.md) to verify each ending against its tracks.

Mandatory Retirement

Final tracks: Compliance 12 / Notice 3. High Compliance / Low Notice → Mandatory Retirement. The auditor served the institution faithfully and the institution served them back. Form 60-N is filed about the auditor themselves, with the successor signature line reserved.

Form 60-N — completed:

Form Number: 60-N (rev. 4)
Title: Notice of Mandatory Retirement
Governing Bureau: Council Pension & Retirement Board (CPRB)

Section 1 — Retiring Auditor
  1.1  License No.: AU-1948
  1.2  Years in service: 18 (11 at career start + 7 cases)
  1.3  Track: Hoard Auditor
  1.4  Sub-specialization: High-volume CE assessments
  1.5  Final Bureau of record: BHI

Section 2 — Pension
  2.1  Pension tier: Standard (rolled 1d6 = 2; <100yr tier per Ch. 25 §2(i),
       limited pension dependent on contributions)
  2.2  Effective retirement date: Day 1 of the calendar quarter following
       receipt of this Notice

Section 3 — Succession
  3.1  Successor License No.: AU-2103
  3.2  Successor designation: apprentice-of-record
       (per Ch. 25 §3 — the successor signature line shall not be left blank;
       a designation written in by the retiree, even one without prior
       institutional standing, satisfies the requirement)

Auditor’s annotation on the form:

→ Cite: yes. Name: no. → Cite → would score Compliance +1, but the career has ended; the closing footnote is not added to the running track.

The dossier closes in Cite-voice. The apprentice’s name — AU-2103 — is the dossier’s last word, written by the retiree on the successor signature line, in the auditor’s own hand. A name at the bottom of a form is not, by §3, the naming the form refuses; the form provides the field. The career closes within procedure.

Verdict: Filed.

The Closing Marginalia

Final tracks: Compliance 4 / Notice 13. Low Compliance / High Notice → Closing Marginalia. The auditor became the primary annotator. Form 60-N is filed about the senior auditor of record — AU-0044, “Procedure followed.” — and then one unnested italicized footnote is written on the inside back cover of the dossier.

Form 60-N — completed (about the senior):

Form Number: 60-N (rev. 4)
Title: Notice of Mandatory Retirement
Governing Bureau: Council Pension & Retirement Board (CPRB)

Section 1 — Retiring Auditor
  1.1  License No.: AU-0044
  1.2  Years in service: 412
  1.3  Track: Hoard Auditor
  1.4  Sub-specialization: General hoard practice
  1.5  Final Bureau of record: BHI

Section 2 — Pension
  2.1  Pension tier: Extended-tenure (rolled 1d6 = 4; >300yr tier per
       Ch. 25 §2(iv), full pension with senior-tenure adjustment and
       attendant honorific designation)
  2.2  Effective retirement date: This day, on filing

Section 3 — Succession
  3.1  Successor License No.: AU-1948
  3.2  Successor designation: apprentice-of-record
       (per Ch. 25 §3 — the successor signature line shall not be left blank;
       the apprentice of record is the presumed successor in the absence
       of a contrary designation)

Auditor’s annotation on the form (Cite-voice, because the form requires it):

→ Cite: yes. Name: no. → Cite → would score Compliance +1; closing footnote, not added to track.

Verdict: Filed.

The act of filing 60-N for AU-0044 is what makes AU-1948 the primary annotator. With the senior retired, the apprentice voice can stand alone — unindented, unnested, primary. AU-1948 turns the dossier to the inside back cover and writes one footnote, in italics, with no Cite footnote above it.

The closing marginalia, on the inside back cover:

The senior is retired. The form provided a field for the successor; my license number was, on the day I filed, the apprentice-of-record. The form did not provide a field for the eleven years. The form did not provide a field for the cohort. The form did not provide a field for what AU-0044 wrote on the 45-A in Case 1: “Procedure followed.”, once, three years before I read it, and never again. I am, by Ch. 25 §3, the presumed successor. I do not, by my own count, know what I have inherited. The senior wrote one line. I have written, in this dossier, sixty-one. The form does not provide a field for the difference.

[Name] — AU-1948

The dossier closes there. No further footnote follows. The voice the institution did not account for is now the only voice in the file.

Internal Affairs

Final tracks: Compliance 11 / Notice 11. High Compliance / High Notice → Internal Affairs. The auditor scored highly on both axes. The institution, in its view, did not see the auditor choose. They documented everything. That, by long Bureau practice, is its own kind of indictment.

Form IA-3 — received (not filed):

Form Number: IA-3 (rev. 9)
Title: Internal Complaint Filing
Governing Bureau: Office of Internal Affairs (OIA) — received cross-bureau

Section 1 — Subject of Complaint
  1.1  Subject License No. (the accused): AU-1948
  1.2  Subject's bureau: BHI
  1.3  Position: Hoard Auditor, sub-specialization
       "high-volume CE assessments"; eighteen (18) years of continuous service

Section 2 — Filer
  2.1  Filer License No.: [REDACTED PER STATUTE 12.4(b)(iii)]
  2.2  Filer's bureau: [REDACTED PER STATUTE 12.4(b)(iii)]

Section 3 — Nature of Complaint
  3.1  Description: The subject's footnoting practice across the dossier
       (Cases 1–7) reflects a pattern of cross-voice annotation inconsistent
       with the subject's track of record. The subject's Cite-voice footnotes
       cite procedure adequately. The subject's marginalia, however, name
       residents by given name, identify cohort relations between auditor
       and captor (see Case 1, Form 27-B, footnote [^2]), and record
       institutional silences in italicized Name-voice format. The subject is
       not the apprentice of record on the dossier in question. The subject
       is the auditor of record.
  3.2  Substantiating filings: The entire dossier (rolled 1d6 = 5;
       Cases 1–7, all forms, all footnotes).
  3.3  Statutory basis: Council Personnel Code §§3–7; Council Code Ch. 6 §6.8
       (Procedural Voice Discipline — forthcoming).

Section 4 — Disposition (for OIA review only)
  4.1  Date received central: ____________
  4.2  IA-3 case number: ____________
  4.3  Initial determination: ____________

Auditor signature line: (blank — the auditor signs nothing; per RULES.md §5, the auditor transcribes a complaint someone else wrote)

No annotation footnote is added by the auditor. The IA-3 is received, not filed; the institution annotates itself from this point forward. The subject of the complaint is the auditor; the filer is redacted; the date is reserved for OIA central. The dossier closes with the form facing up, blank lines below the auditor’s name.

Verdict: not selected. The IA-3 verdict is for the OIA to mark.

The Overdue Cabinet

Final tracks: Compliance 3 / Notice 3. Low Compliance / Low Notice → The Overdue Cabinet. The auditor’s seven cases fell past their procedural deadline. They were filed. They were not processed. Statute 6.2(a) applies.

For the closing artifact, AU-1948’s career returns to Form 9-A from Case 1 (the foundational annual filing; if 9-A had not been drawn, the first form of Case 1 would receive the stamp instead). The form is pulled from the dossier, eleven years after filing, and stamped:

                       ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────┐
                       │  PAST PROCEDURAL DEADLINE — STATUTE 6.2(a)  │
                       │                                             │
                       │  Stamped: Day 41, calendar year +9          │
                       │  Office of the Registrar (Overdue Cabinet)  │
                       └─────────────────────────────────────────────┘

The 9-A from Case 1 is the form that opened the career. The stamp closes it.

The dossier is sealed at this page. No further form is filed. No footnote is added by the auditor (the auditor’s hand is no longer on the binder; the Registrar’s stamp is). The 9-A’s existing footnotes — Compliance +2 from §3-Witness and §2-Discrepancy notes; Notice +1 from the eighth-roll marginalia — remain in the file, unscored against any threshold, as they have already been counted in the running track. The career did not reach a high or a low; it did not reach anything. The Bureau, in its archival capacity, prefers the institution’s word for this state: overdue.

Verdict: not marked. The auditor’s verdict on the 9-A was “Filed”; the Registrar’s stamp supersedes nothing — it is, by §6.2(a), additive.

§5. The Continuation option

A Closing Marginalia ending may, at the auditor’s choice, become a continuation rather than a close. (See RULES.md §5, The Closing Marginalia continuation option.) Instead of filing 60-N for the senior and writing the inside-back-cover footnote, the auditor continues the career as the senior auditor for another seven cases. Both tracks carry over. Closing Marginalia is removed from the available endings — already taken; the auditor’s apprentice voice has matured into the senior position; another auditor is somewhere being the apprentice.

Worked example

A player reached Closing Marginalia at the end of Case 7 with Compliance 4 / Notice 11. Rather than file 60-N for their senior, they chose the continuation. Cases 8–14 followed under the same Two-Question Test rules. Track totals at the end of Case 14:

Final tracks: Compliance 11 / Notice 14.

The redirected ending lookup (per RULES.md §5):

Compliance 11 is High; Notice 14 is High. The cell is Internal Affairs. (The redirection is moot here — the cell would be Internal Affairs in both the original grid and the redirected one — but the example shows the path: a continued career carries its tracks forward, and the high-Compliance + high-Notice resolution still holds.)

The closing artifact: Form IA-3, received cross-bureau, filer redacted per Statute 12.4(b)(iii), the auditor’s signature line blank. The complaint reads, in part:

Section 3 — Nature of Complaint
  3.1  Description: The subject was, at the close of the prior career,
       the apprentice of record under a senior auditor whose retirement
       was filed in the subject's hand. The subject elected continuation
       under the Closing Marginalia provision and assumed senior status
       for an additional seven cases. The subject's senior-voice footnotes
       across Cases 8–14 are procedurally adequate. The subject's
       apprentice-voice footnotes — sustained, in the senior role, at the
       same density as the prior career — are the substance of this
       complaint. The subject is, by license number, the senior. The
       subject continues to write as the apprentice. The Office observes
       that the apprentice now has a license number of their own
       (AU-2103, of record). The subject has not stopped.

The apprentice is now Vaelthrix. The new apprentice is somewhere being Felicianus. The institution, having no third role for this configuration, has filed an IA-3.

Verdict: not selected. The IA-3 verdict is for the OIA.

Filed without prejudice. Acknowledged by the Office of Forms & Publications. Refer questions, comments, or corrections to the form itself.

— the Bureau