Public candidate packet
Reported QA candidates: New Zealand and the United Kingdom
Five source/current-text discrepancies found during LawVM development, with notification, observation, and confirmation kept distinct.
How to read this packet
Each item compares wording on an official current or final-version page with the provision that appears to enact the change. It records the reason for review and links both sides. The publisher’s disposition governs confirmation; silence leaves a candidate unresolved.
New Zealand
Three probable cross-reference transpositions
The packet was sent to the Parliamentary Counsel Office on 16 June 2026. PCO acknowledged receipt and said it would check the items. No substantive confirmation or refutation is recorded here.
Oranga Tamariki Act 1989, s 320(1A)
Reported contrast: the consolidated provision referred to s 238(ja), while its two parallel references, related text in s 320, and the inserting 2010 amendment point to s 283(ja).
Oranga Tamariki Act 1989, s 296A(2)
Reported contrast: subsection (2) referred to a parenting education order under s 298(ja), while subsection (1), the order hierarchy, and the inserting amendment point to s 283(ja).
Water Services Entities Act 2022, s 422(1)(a)
Reported contrast: the final version referred to s 273(1)(c), which concerned equipment, while the offence heading, adjacent provisions, and the inserting 2023 amendment point to the notification rule in s 273(1)(d). The Act has been repealed.
United Kingdom
Two source/current-text omission candidates
These examples were sent to The National Archives before a LawVM meeting as demonstrations of source-backed QA signals. No substantive publisher disposition is recorded here.
Utilities Act 2000, s 8(10)
Reported contrast: the current provision still displayed the definition of “OFT scheme”, while SI 2013/783 article 5 directed that definition to be omitted.
Dated follow-up: official XML inspected on 11 August 2026 no longer contained the definition. The record remains a changed public surface pending publisher disposition and attribution.
Bankers’ Books Evidence Act 1879, s 5
Reported contrast: the current provision displayed the paragraph beginning “Where the proceedings”, while Criminal Justice Act 2003 Schedule 3 paragraph 30 directed that paragraph to be omitted and the related repeal table recorded the change.
Dated follow-up: official XML inspected on 11 August 2026 still displayed the paragraph. Its status remains candidate awaiting publisher disposition.
Current provision · Source provision · Repeal table · Commencement
What this evidence supports
These packets show that deterministic amendment replay and source/current-text comparison can produce narrow, inspectable QA candidates across different legislative systems. Publisher disposition determines whether each candidate is confirmed, refuted, or otherwise explained.
Claim ceiling: the five items remain candidates awaiting disposition. Official-error, publisher-accuracy, corpus-coverage, and reconstructed-text authority claims require additional evidence.