SettleADebt S_WI PASS-20
Bounded citation-status and claim-traceability repair to PASS-18
Fresh access date: October 26, 2026, America/Los_Angeles; October 27, 2026 UTC. Exact individual source-opening times are unknown.
Scope: Only the three requested correction groups. PASS-19 is not a premise. The original PASS-18 record remains unchanged; the replacements below are a separate correction layer.
Result: Brown County is withdrawn as ordinary persuasive court authority; Minerals receives an explicit, limited unpublished-opinion status; the Jones discussion receives its own claim ID. The direct-authority gap for the Milwaukee Police confirmation-response proposition remains pending, not silently filled by Brown County.
1. Citation rule used for these corrections
The Wisconsin Supreme Court’s 2009 WI 2, effective July 1, 2009, establishes the relevant distinctions:
- Pre-July 1, 2009 unpublished opinions are not generally citable as authority in Wisconsin courts. The specified exceptions concern claim preclusion, issue preclusion, and law of the case.
- Post-cutoff authored unpublished opinions may qualify for persuasive citation. Per curiam opinions, memorandum opinions, summary dispositions, and other orders do not qualify under that permission.
- Eligible unpublished opinions are not binding. A court need not discuss them, and a party need not research or cite them.
- Actual citation requires filing and serving a copy with the citing paper.
Primary rule: https://www.wicourts.gov/sc/scord/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=35116, §§1–3, amending Rule 809.23(3)(a)–(c). The official opinions guide corroborates the date/authorship distinction: https://www.wicourts.gov/opinions/appeals2.htm, “Precedential value of opinions” and “Citation of unpublished opinions.” These were freshly read here; PASS-19 was not adopted. Wisconsin Court System+1
The 2009 order and accessible guide are not represented as a complete 2026 integrated-rule amendment-chain certification.
2. Group 1 — Brown County, confirmation-response authority, and fraud timing
2.1 Replacement source status: S_WI-P18-S024
Replace “unpublished timing illustration” wherever it implies ordinary persuasive court authority with:
S_WI-P18-S024 — Historical research only.
Brown County v. AFSCME Local 1901-F, No. 2005AP50, July 26, 2005, is expressly PER CURIAM and states that it will not be published. It is both pre-July 1, 2009 and an excluded authorship format. It is therefore not ordinary persuasive authority under Rule 809.23(3)(b). The limited paragraph (a) exceptions are not established by this assignment.
Official opinion:
https://www.wicourts.gov/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=19110, heading, ¶¶1–5, nonpublication statement, and footnote 1. Wisconsin Court System
Its historical disposition remains accurately describable: the court affirmed on the unexplained delay after discovery, did not decide whether fraud equitably tolled the period, and distinguished the WERC complaint from a court confirmation application. That description is not a new generally applicable timeliness rule. Wisconsin Court System
2.2 The Milwaukee Police source gap
The intended published authority is:
Milwaukee Police Association v. City of Milwaukee, 92 Wis. 2d 145, 164–65, 285 N.W.2d 119 (1979).
A targeted official-domain search located the correct Wisconsin Legislature indexed annotation referring to the confirmation-response proposition and that citation:
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/document/statutes/788.11%281%29%28c%29
The result is indexed annotation text, not an opened complete annotation page or the 1979 majority opinion. It is a locator and corroborating discovery lead only. No third attempt to retrieve the failed current chapter 788 HTML/PDF was made. The separate Milwaukee Police decision reported at 92 Wis. 2d 175, 285 N.W.2d 133 is not substituted for the specified case. Wisconsin Legislative Documents+1
Consequently, S_WI-P18-C027 remains pending authoritative-body verification. This does not establish that the reported exception is false.
2.3 Complete replacement claim cells
| Full claim ID |
Replacement assertion, actor, and predicate |
Act/clock/effect |
Evidence and exception |
Status |
| S_WI-P18-C027 |
PASS-18 reported that an adverse party may raise statutory objections after three months when responding to a prevailing party’s court application to confirm. The intended authority is the published 92 Wis. 2d 145, 164–65 decision—not Brown County. |
No new deadline, extension, or entitlement is established here. The proposition requires direct authoritative-body verification before being treated as completed support. |
S_WI-P20-S003 is an official indexed annotation lead only. S_WI-P18-S024 is removed as ordinary persuasive support. The actual court-confirmation posture must be established; an administrative complaint is not substituted. |
Source-pending; not disproved. |
| S_WI-P18-C028 |
Retain only the historical research observation about Brown County’s disposition. Withdraw its use as ordinary persuasive authority for a general fraud-discovery or reasonable-delay rule. |
Brown County does not supply a new tolling rule or statutory clock. |
Existing S_WI-P18-S024, ¶¶1–5, subject to the source-status correction above. |
Historical-only description. |
| S_WI-P18-C053 |
For a party seeking vacatur under the previously reported §788.10(1)(a), distinguish the merits element—that corruption, fraud, or undue means procured the award—from any timing or tolling question. |
The procurement element remains attributed to the prior statutory read-aid. No discovery extension, unlimited period, or new promptness rule is established by this correction. |
S_WI-P18-S005, §788.10(1)(a), is the prior nonofficial 2025 read-aid, not a fresh current-primary read. Brown County cannot fill the unresolved tolling issue. |
Procurement retained with original source hold; tolling unresolved. |
Replacement for PASS-18 G1.11
The reported confirmation-response exception is now recorded under corrected S_WI-P18-C027 as source-pending. The published Milwaukee Police citation is correctly identified, but neither Brown County’s citation to it nor an indexed annotation is represented as a fresh read of the controlling opinion. Brown County remains historical research only. This correction establishes neither an unlimited challenge period nor the absence of a confirmation-response exception.
Replacement for PASS-18 G3.25
The alleged misconduct must be connected to procurement of the award under the previously reported statutory ground. Whether later discovery changes the applicable challenge period is a separate issue and remains unresolved here. Corrected S_WI-P18-C053 supplies no tolling rule. S_WI-P18-C028 is not ordinary persuasive authority for one.
2.4 Narrow changes to PASS-18 workflows 4 and 5
| Existing workflow |
Replacement qualification |
What remains unchanged |
| Workflow 4 — late standalone notice |
Replace its confirmation-response alternative with: “A later court confirmation application would raise the source-pending S_WI-P18-C027 question. This correction does not certify that exception or equate an administrative complaint with confirmation.” |
Original hypothetical dates and facial-period model are not recalculated or recertified. |
| Workflow 5 — fraud discovered after award |
Replace the Brown-dependent timing support with: “Procurement must be proved separately from timeliness. Fraud-based tolling and any confirmation-response exception remain unresolved/source-pending under corrected C053/C027.” |
Original facts and absence of a proven procurement connection remain hypothetical. |
3. Group 2 — Minerals is eligible unpublished persuasive material, with a narrow holding
3.1 Replacement for S_WI-P18-S020
Wisconsin Court of Appeals, Minerals Development & Supply Co. v. Superior Silica Sands, LLC, No. 2012AP2328, November 7, 2013.
The opinion identifies Lundsten, J. as author and ends with a recommendation against publication. Treat it here only as an authored post-2009 unpublished opinion eligible for nonbinding persuasive use, subject to any later publication or subsequent-history information not checked. The footer is not represented as a fresh review of a later publication-committee order.
Official source:
https://www.wicourts.gov/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=104095, heading, ¶1, ¶¶27–31, concluding publication recommendation, and footnote 3. The opinion uses the 2011–12 Wisconsin statutes unless otherwise indicated. Wisconsin Court System+2
3.2 Complete replacement for S_WI-P18-C011 and G1.5’s case explanation
S_WI-P18-C011 — Limited Minerals reasoning.
In reviewing the appellant’s forum argument, the court assumed without deciding that §788.09 could operate as a competency or jurisdiction statute. It rejected the argument because it mismatched county selection with state jurisdiction and did not support treating the final hearing’s location as the place where the award was made. The arbitrators had not announced their decision at that hearing. This is a rejection of the argument presented, not a comprehensive award-situs test or an actual county determination for another award.
Pinpoint: ¶¶27–31.
Effect: Eligible persuasive reasoning only; current statutory body, actual award situs, and full later treatment remain held. Wisconsin Court System
The list of possible situs-related documents in PASS-18 G1.5 remains only a factual checklist. It is not converted into a verified judicial multifactor test. S_WI-P18-C008’s separate statutory-route statement retains its prior read-aid/currentness limitations.
4. Group 3 — Jones claim collision, guidance link, and Sewart caption
4.1 Add one distinct substantive claim
Do not overwrite S_WI-P18-C034. Add:
| Field |
New atomic claim |
| Claim ID |
S_WI-P20-C001 |
| Area/status |
A066; A097/A098 and parent status remain open |
| Actor/predicate |
Court reviewing a motion to compel arbitration and stay consumer counterclaims, on the particular agreement and procedural record in Jones |
| Assertion/effect |
The majority held that clause unconscionable based on the combined procedural and substantive circumstances. Its excessive one-sidedness, burdensome dual forums, case-specific prohibited self-help carve-out, and fee/indigence context mattered. |
| Limits |
Not every one-sided clause is invalid; the $125 fee was not independently dispositive. The majority declined the specific WCA preemption issue it discussed. No current FAA-preemption, delegation, later-citator, or actual-contract conclusion is added. |
| Source/pinpoint |
Existing S_WI-P18-S022, Wisconsin Auto Title Loans, Inc. v. Jones, 2006 WI 53, majority ¶¶3–6, 68–74, 85–90 |
| Clock/required filing |
None established by this claim |
Official source:
https://www.wicourts.gov/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=25287. Necessary majority passages were freshly read. The reviewed posture was refusal to compel/stay, not vacatur of an existing award. Wisconsin Court System+1
Exact link repairs
| Location |
Replace |
With |
| PASS-18 G1.1, Jones consumer-unconscionability paragraph |
S_WI-P18-C034 |
S_WI-P20-C001, source S_WI-P18-S022 |
| Core coverage row 4, general contract defenses |
C002/C034 collision |
Preserve S_WI-P18-C002; use S_WI-P20-C001 only for the Jones illustration |
| Core coverage row 7, consumer unconscionability |
S_WI-P18-C034 |
S_WI-P20-C001 |
4.2 Preserve the actual S_WI-P18-C034
| Existing claim |
Unchanged assertion |
Source/read status |
| S_WI-P18-C034 |
Chapter 788 governs arbitration-award actions within chapter 799. |
S_WI-P18-S013, §799.213. Prior attributed read-aid only; not reread here. |
Jones supplies no replacement authority for that small-claims gateway.
4.3 Correct G4.36’s guidance link
The SC-6000 guidance/local-practice paragraph must point to:
S_WI-P18-C064, supported by S_WI-P18-S015.
Remove S_WI-P18-C053, which concerns fraud procurement/timing. No substantive guidance content is added, and no claim is made that the coordinator or this pass reread the whole SC-6000 guide.
| Existing claim |
Unchanged assertion |
Source/read status |
| S_WI-P18-C064 |
Statewide forms do not certify all 72 counties’ practices. |
S_WI-P18-S014–S015, prior attributed reads. Only the erroneous G4.36 claim link changes. |
4.4 Correct S_WI-P18-S018’s caption
Replace:
Sewart v. Silvercryst Builders, Inc.
with:
Sewart v. Silvercryst Limited, Inc., 2010 WI App 141.
The official caption was freshly checked. The URL and original ¶¶11–24 pinpoints remain unchanged; those substantive passages were not re-reviewed in this correction.
https://www.wicourts.gov/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=54391, published-opinion heading and complete caption; opinion filed September 15, 2010. Wisconsin Court System
5. Source registers and access attribution
All fresh observations below occurred October 26, 2026 Pacific / October 27, 2026 UTC. Individual opening times are unknown. All freshly opened documents were HTML: printed-page and zero-based PDF-index fields are not applicable, and no new PDF-pixel inspection is claimed.
5.1 Newly registered PASS-20 resources
New resource rows: 3. The four rechecked opinions below retain their original P18 IDs rather than being counted as new authorities.
5.2 Existing PASS-18 source audit overlays
| Original source ID |
Complete source identity and URL |
PASS-20 observation |
Status/read limit |
| S_WI-P18-S024 |
Wisconsin Court of Appeals, Brown County v. AFSCME Local 1901-F, No. 2005AP50. https://www.wicourts.gov/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=19110 |
Fresh: heading, all five numbered paragraphs, footer, footnote 1 |
July 26, 2005; unpublished per curiam; historical-only classification under Group 1. |
| S_WI-P18-S020 |
Wisconsin Court of Appeals, Minerals Development & Supply Co. v. Superior Silica Sands, LLC, No. 2012AP2328. https://www.wicourts.gov/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=104095 |
Fresh limited read: heading, ¶1, ¶¶27–31, publication footer, statutory-version note |
November 7, 2013; authored; nonbinding persuasive treatment with publication/citator hold. Not a whole-opinion review. |
| S_WI-P18-S022 |
Wisconsin Supreme Court, Wisconsin Auto Title Loans, Inc. v. Jones, 2006 WI 53. https://www.wicourts.gov/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=25287 |
Fresh limited read: majority ¶¶3–6, 68–74, 85–90 and necessary adjacent context |
May 25, 2006 published majority. Supports the new claim only; later FAA/preemption treatment held. |
| S_WI-P18-S018 |
Wisconsin Court of Appeals, Sewart v. Silvercryst Limited, Inc., 2010 WI App 141. https://www.wicourts.gov/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=54391 |
Fresh caption/status check only |
September 15, 2010; published heading. Original ¶¶11–24 preserved, not substantively refreshed. |
| S_WI-P18-S005 |
Nonofficial 2025 read-aid, §788.10. https://law.justia.com/codes/wisconsin/chapter-788/section-788-10/ |
No fresh access. PASS-18 reported an October 26 Pacific/October 27 UTC read |
Used only as an attributed existing statutory-support limitation for the procurement component of C053. |
| S_WI-P18-S013 |
Nonofficial 2025 read-aid, §799.213. https://law.justia.com/codes/wisconsin/chapter-799/section-799-213/ |
No fresh access. Prior PASS-18 read preserved |
C034 remains unchanged; no Jones support substituted. |
| S_WI-P18-S015 |
Wisconsin Court System, SC-6000V, rev. 09/24. https://www.wicourts.gov/formdisplay/SC-6000V_instructions.pdf?formNumber=SC-6000V&formType=Instructions&formatId=2&language=en |
No fresh access or image inspection. PASS-18 reported printed pp.1, 4–5 / zero indexes 0, 3–4 |
Source for repaired C064 guidance link only; no whole-guide recertification. |
Existing-source audit rows: 7—four limited fresh opinion checks and three attributed prior reads.
The coordinator’s supplied review completion time, 2026-10-27T06:13:34.850860+00:00, and packet references remain review metadata, not individual source-opening timestamps.
6. Complete affected PASS-18 coverage replacements
These are nine existing rows, not additions to PASS-18’s original 141 coverage rows.
| Original core row |
Corrected finding/status |
Claim crosswalk |
Evidence/remaining gap |
| 4 — General contract defenses |
Preserve the prior statutory gateway. Jones is a bounded illustration, not C034. |
S_WI-P18-C002 + S_WI-P20-C001 |
Existing statutory-source hold; fresh S022 for Jones only |
| 7 — Consumer unconscionability |
Supported only within the new claim’s case-specific limits |
S_WI-P20-C001 |
Fresh S022 majority; current preemption/citator held |
| 15 — Confirmation county |
Statutory route retains original current-body hold; Minerals adds only limited persuasive reasoning |
S_WI-P18-C008 + corrected C011 |
S004 remains prior read-aid; S020 not proof of an actual county |
| 16 — Final hearing location |
Replace broad situs implication with the limited C011 rejection of the unsupported argument presented |
S_WI-P18-C011 |
Fresh S020 ¶¶27–31 |
| 41 — Confirmation-response exception |
Source-pending, not completed primary verification |
S_WI-P18-C027 |
Correct published citation located; P20-S003 index only |
| 42 — Unlimited tolling |
Brown County cannot supply ordinary persuasive support for either a universal extension or a universal prohibition |
S_WI-P18-C028 |
Historical description only; tolling unresolved |
| 57 — SC-6000 |
Content/status unchanged; repair narrative link only |
S_WI-P18-C064, not C053 |
Existing S015 attributed prior read |
| 82 — Fraud procurement |
Procurement component retained with original statutory read-aid qualification |
S_WI-P18-C014 + corrected C053 |
No fresh chapter 788 body |
| 83 — Fraud discovery timing |
Unresolved as a general timing/tolling proposition |
S_WI-P18-C053/C028 as corrected |
Brown County historical; C027 separately pending |
7. Old-to-new crosswalk
| # |
Affected item |
Exact correction |
Claim/source destination |
| 1 |
S024’s authority status |
Historical-only; pre-cutoff and per-curiam restrictions both stated |
P18-S024; P20-S001–S002 |
| 2 |
P18 introduction’s undifferentiated “published opinions” description |
Read as “published opinions and separately identified unpublished materials”; no publication-status upgrade |
Source audit overlays |
| 3 |
G1.11/C027 |
Remove Brown County as direct support; record the published-authority gap |
Corrected P18-C027; P20-S003 |
| 4 |
G1.11/C028 |
Retain only historical disposition; no general tolling holding |
Corrected P18-C028 |
| 5 |
G3.25/C053 |
Separate statutory procurement from unresolved timing |
Corrected P18-C053; prior P18-S005 |
| 6 |
Core rows 41/42/82/83 |
Replace support/status cells |
Coverage table above |
| 7 |
Workflows 4/5 |
Qualify alternatives and support; do not rerun dates |
Two workflow annotations in §2.4 |
| 8 |
S020 |
Add authorship, date, unpublished persuasive status, and limits |
Source audit; Group 2 |
| 9 |
G1.5/C011 |
Preserve assumed-without-deciding and argument-specific posture |
Corrected P18-C011 |
| 10 |
Core rows 15/16 |
Narrow forum/situs support |
Corrected coverage cells |
| 11 |
Jones paragraph in G1.1 |
Replace colliding C034 link |
New P20-C001; existing P18-S022 |
| 12 |
Core rows 4/7 |
Link Jones to the new atomic claim |
P20-C001 |
| 13 |
P18-C034 |
Preserve its small-claims assertion and S013 source |
Unchanged |
| 14 |
G4.36 SC-6000 reference |
Replace C053 with C064; retain S015 |
Unchanged C064, corrected link |
| 15 |
S018 caption |
“Builders” → “Limited”; same URL and original substantive pinpoints |
Existing P18-S018 |
| 16 |
Final source/currentness audit |
Distinguish fresh checks, prior reads, index-only lead, and unresolved body access |
§§5, 8–10 |
Crosswalk rows: 16.
8. Complete correction-scope coverage
| # |
Requested correction subissue |
Status |
Claim/evidence |
Exact remaining question |
| 1 |
Rule’s pre-2009 restriction |
Freshly checked |
P20-S001–S002; corrected C028 |
Full integrated amendment chain not checked |
| 2 |
Per-curiam exclusion |
Freshly checked |
P20-S001; P18-S024 |
No limited-purpose exception assumed |
| 3 |
Brown County’s actual holding |
Historical description corrected |
P18-S024 ¶¶1–5; C028 |
Not ordinary persuasive authority |
| 4 |
Fraud tolling |
Explicitly unresolved |
C028/C053 |
Need permissible controlling authority |
| 5 |
WERC versus court confirmation |
Historical posture retained |
P18-S024 ¶4 |
No actual proceeding supplied |
| 6 |
Exact Milwaukee Police target |
Correct citation identified |
C027; P20-S003 |
92 Wis. 2d 145, 164–65 body needed |
| 7 |
C027 support |
Pending |
C027 |
Index cannot replace authoritative-body read |
| 8 |
Procurement versus timing |
Separated |
C053 |
Current statutory-body hold retained |
| 9 |
Minerals authorship/date |
Freshly checked |
P18-S020 heading/¶1 |
Later publication/citator not checked |
| 10 |
Minerals legal weight |
Qualified persuasive only |
C011; P20-S001–S002 |
No binding-publication claim |
| 11 |
Minerals competency/jurisdiction assumption |
Corrected |
C011; S020 ¶29 |
Not a decided universal classification |
| 12 |
County/state and hearing-situs argument |
Narrowed |
C011; S020 ¶¶27–31 |
Actual award county unknown |
| 13 |
Jones majority passages |
Freshly read |
New P20-C001; P18-S022 |
Later FAA/preemption treatment held |
| 14 |
C034 collision |
Repaired |
P20-C001 versus unchanged P18-C034 |
No ID overwrite |
| 15 |
SC-6000 guidance link |
Repaired |
P18-C064/S015 |
No whole-guide fresh read |
| 16 |
Sewart caption |
Corrected |
P18-S018 heading |
Other pinpoints not rerun |
| 17 |
Chapter 788 access failures |
Preserved |
Prior P18 record |
No third integrated HTML/PDF attempt |
| 18 |
Original federal findings and numerical examples |
Untouched |
Prior PASS-18 record |
No new federal or calendar certification |
Correction-core rows: 18.
9. Two focused fictional citation-routing examples
Example A — Brown County offered as fraud-tolling authority
A hypothetical researcher proposes citing Brown County to prove that discovery of fraud after three months necessarily extends the vacatur period.
Routing: Reject that use. The source is not ordinary persuasive court authority, and its own disposition did not decide tolling. Corrected S_WI-P18-C028/C053 supply no extension rule. A genuine claim-preclusion, issue-preclusion, or law-of-the-case use would require different facts, none supplied here.
Remaining need: A permissible, actually read authority resolving the relevant timing question—not an inference from the historical opinion’s outcome. Wisconsin Court System+1
Example B — Minerals offered as a universal jurisdiction holding
A hypothetical researcher proposes treating Minerals as binding authority that identifies the proper court whenever an arbitration hearing occurred elsewhere.
Routing: Limit the use to corrected S_WI-P18-C011. The observed authorship/date permit eligible persuasive use, not a binding or universal forum conclusion. If actually cited in court, the Rule 809.23 copy requirement applies. The original agreement, award, and situs facts remain missing. Wisconsin Court System+1
New citation-routing examples: 2. These do not replace or duplicate PASS-18’s fifteen original workflows.
10. Retained holds
Deferred matters
| # |
Hold |
PASS-20 treatment |
| D1 |
Complete current chapter 788 and §§801.14–.15 bodies |
Unchanged; no additional integrated-body attempt |
| D2 |
Direct Milwaukee Police opinion/complete authoritative annotation |
Exact remaining new source gap |
| D3 |
Full FAA preemption, Jones later treatment, and complete citator |
Unexamined; no clearance |
| D4 |
Actual agreement, award, delivery, service, arbitrability, jurisdiction, fraud, or county |
No private facts supplied or searched |
| D5 |
Fees, stay, security, enforcement, appeals, and other relief |
No new remedy or operational conclusion |
| D6 |
Publication, operation, Wisconsin/component/parent/A066/A097/A098 acceptance |
Expressly withheld |
Deferred rows: 6.
Territorial/local limits
| # |
Branch |
Limit |
| T1 |
Wisconsin state courts and all 72 counties |
Citation rules addressed; county filing, service, hearing, division, fee, and e-filing practices unexamined |
| T2 |
Federal courts |
P18 FAA, Jules, and Badgerow work left unchanged—not newly reviewed |
| T3 |
Tribal, other-state, and foreign jurisdictions |
No citation, recognition, or forum rule supplied |
Territorial/local rows: 3.
Final count and provenance check
| Unit |
Count/status |
| New PASS-20 resource rows |
3 |
| Newly registered successful rule/guidance body reads |
2 |
| New index-only authority lead |
1 |
| Existing PASS-18 sources freshly checked |
4 |
| Existing-source audit rows |
7 |
| Full replacement PASS-18 claim cells |
4 — C011, C027, C028, C053 |
| New substantive atomic claim |
1 — S_WI-P20-C001 |
| Existing claims explicitly preserved for corrected links |
2 — C034, C064 |
| Existing core coverage cells patched/confirmed |
9 |
| Correction-core rows |
18 |
| Crosswalk rows |
16 |
| Original workflow annotations changed |
2 — workflows 4 and 5 |
| New fictional citation-routing examples |
2 |
| Deferred rows |
6 |
| Territorial/local rows |
3 |
The supplied original PASS-18 totals—36 sources, 66 claims, 141 coverage rows, and 15 workflows—remain immutable historical totals. They are not recounted as fresh research, and no “new full PASS-18 total” is asserted.
The unresolved evidence item is precise: S_WI-P18-C027 lacks a newly opened authoritative body for the published Milwaukee Police rule. The official indexed annotation helps locate that authority but is insufficient to upgrade the claim. The remaining citation-status, caption, and claim-link repairs are recorded above.
No private party, provider, arbitrator, award, account, registry, or docket was searched. No filing, contact, form, payment, publication, or local coordinator-file write occurred. No original federal-law conclusion or example arithmetic was recalculated.
This correction is not independent review, all-source certification, an actual forum or timeliness opinion, or acceptance of Wisconsin PASS-18, PASS-20, any component, or the parent dossier.
END S_WI PASS-20.