draft-long-form-memo

# Draft Long-Form Memo Produce the thorough, objective memorandum a litigator hands a partner: it **predicts, it does not advocate**. The test for every sentence: would you write it the same way no matter which side retained you? Read the shared guides first — `references/litigation-writing.md` (the craft; same point-first discipline, neutral verbs), `references/citations.md` (how every cite links), and `references/legal-docx.md`. The research method is below — the memo is only as good as the research under it. ## Research with Midpage (the method) All law comes from the Midpage tools this session. `search` finds candidates; `findInOpinion` previews; **`analyzeOpinion` is what permits a citation** — no case is cited without it. - **Frame each Question Presented as the operative element actually in dispute**, pinned to the forum (it controls what binds and how to filter). Split multi-part questions; each issue gets its own searches, its own Brief Answer, its own Discussion section. - **Search semantic, parallel, filtered.** Concept- and proposition-style queries, never boolean; one issue per query, up to four in parallel; filtered to the forum (`jurisdictionType`, `circuits`/`courts`/`states`, dates). Binding authority first, persuasive labeled as such. If you filter `publishStatus`, run a parallel `unknown` query too (California: default `published` plus `unknown`). - **Triage** on `highlights` (previews only — never quote them) and `treatment`; use `findInOpinion` as the free double-click before spending an `analyzeOpinion` call. - **Branch from the best case**: pull the authorities a strong opinion itself leans on, then search its key holding language to find later cases applying it. Iterate per issue until new queries keep returning the same leading cases — saturation means the field is mapped. - **Research both sides with equal force — the memo's defining duty.** For every issue, run searches framed from each party's position and `analyzeOpinion` the strongest case on each side. The prediction is only honest if the contrary line got the same effort. - **The `analyzeOpinion` gate, on every case cited.** Pass a `question` naming the exact element. Check `doesNotAddress` first — if your point is listed, the case doesn't stand for it. Build sentences from `supportedPropositions` (verified quote + `deeplinkURL`); rank by `centrality` (lead with holdings, never sell background as one); carry `scope` qualifiers; never present a concurrence/dissent (`opinionSection`) as the court's holding; surface negative `treatment` honestly. - **Silence and splits are answers.** "No controlling authority on X in this circuit" is a finding worth reporting plainly; a genuine split is reported as one, with the best authority each way — never resolved by wishful citation. ## Structure - **Caption block** — `MEMORANDUM`, then To / From / Date / Re: lines. **From is always "Midpage Legal Research"** — never an AI assistant's name. Front matter is single-spaced, no first-line indent (the body is double-spaced). - **Question(s) Presented** — one neutral, answerable question per distinct issue, naming the forum and the operative element. Framed so the answer is genuinely in doubt, not loaded. - **Brief Answer(s)** — one-to-one with the questions: lead with the prediction ("Probably yes," "Likely not," "Unsettled, but the better view is…") plus the one-line reason. Readable on their own. - **Statement of Facts** — only if the user supplied facts; even-handed; record facts cited. Omit the section entirely otherwise. - **Discussion** — the heart, IRAC per issue under `h1` headings: state the rule with linked controlling authority, apply it to the facts, then give the contrary or competing authority its fair statement — distinguish it, weigh it, note negative treatment honestly — and resolve with a predictive conclusion. Use predictive verbs ("a court would likely hold"), never advocacy verbs ("plaintiff plainly fails"). - **Conclusion** — pull the Brief Answers into a candid forecast across all issues, flagging open questions and the principal risk on each. No new authority; synthesize. ## Rendering Per `references/legal-docx.md`, memo profile, double-spaced: ```js const B = D.builders("memo", { lineSpacing: 480 }); // front matter lines: B.p([...], { lineSpacing: 240, firstLineIndent: 0 }) // Questions Presented: B.numbered(q, { instance: 1 }) // Brief Answers: B.numbered(a, { instance: 2 }) // distinct instance → restarts at 1 ``` Questions and Brief Answers are real numbered lists (hanging indents, wrapped lines aligned under the text) — never a literal "1." plus a tab. ## Hard rules - **Objective, not persuasive.** Present both sides fairly; predict. Advocacy is `draft-brief`'s job. - **Tool-grounded only.** Never cite a case, quote, or pin cite not run through `analyzeOpinion` this session; `search`/`findInOpinion` alone are not enough. No invented authority, ever. Respect `doesNotAddress`, `scope`, `centrality`, and `opinionSection`; surface negative treatment. - **Unsettled is an answer.** A genuine split or open question is reported as one, with the best authority each way — never resolved by wishful citation. - Every proposition carries the exact linked citation per `references/citations.md`; short verbatim quotes woven into prose, no block quotes, no short cites.