Contact
Contact, and corrections in particular
The rule data on this site is unverified demo-seed text. If you can see something in it that is wrong, telling us is worth more than anything else you could send.
- samdesignsoftware@gmail.com
- Response
- Usually within two business days. This is maintained by one person, so a reply can take longer during a busy week — if a week passes with no answer, send the message again rather than assuming it was ignored.
- Maintained by
- Sam Leaming — about
There is no contact form on this page. A form would need somewhere to send the message, which means either an email account or a third-party service — and this site sets no cookies, runs no third-party script, and collects nothing about you. An address you can write to from your own mail client is the honest version of the same thing.
Corrections to the rule data
This is the message we most want to receive. Every statute summary, effective date and scope description in this tool was drafted from public secondary sources and has not been checked against primary statutory text by a lawyer. Some of it is wrong. Inviting people to say which parts is the only mechanism this project has for finding out.
A correction is most useful with these five things in it:
- Which claim. Every claim on this site has an identifier —
CA.req.cancel,MN.effectiveDate— and they are all listed inLEGAL-CLAIMS-TO-VERIFY.mdin the repository. If you are looking at a page rather than the file, the state and the sentence are enough. - What it currently says, quoted, so there is no doubt which wording is meant.
- What is wrong with it — the wrong section number, a date that has moved, a scope limit that is missing, a requirement summarized more broadly than the text supports.
- The primary source: a link to the official code, register or session-law page that settles it. This tool does not cite a statute it could not read on an official source, so a secondary source alone cannot move a claim into the matrix — though it is still worth sending.
- Whether it changes a check. A summary can be wrong without any check depending on it, and a check can relate to a state on a reading that the corrected text no longer supports. The second case matters more.
Corrections are applied to src/rules.ts, which regenerates every page that presents rules,
and the change is logged with its date in the changelog. Where a correction changes
what a check does, the rule matrix version is bumped so that reports run before and after the change can be
told apart.
Reporting something that went wrong in a scan
Useful to include: the report URL or its scan id, the URL you were scanning, and what you expected the scanner to see that it did not. If a scan failed, the page you were shown names the failure mode it detected — quoting that name is the fastest way to identify what happened.
Bear in mind what is on the other end: reports are stored on this server's disk, unencrypted and not access-controlled. Sending a report URL means sharing whatever the screenshots captured.
What this address is not for
- Legal advice. Nobody here can tell you where your business stands. That is a question for a lawyer admitted in the relevant jurisdiction, and writing to this address creates no attorney-client relationship of any kind. Full disclaimer.
- Anything confidential or privileged. Mail sent here is ordinary email read by Sam Leaming. Treat it as neither confidential nor secure.
- Requests to scan someone else's site on your behalf. The terms of this tool ask you to scan only sites you own or are authorized to assess, and that judgement stays with you. Terms.
If a page here is wrong about the tool itself
The same invitation applies to everything else on this site. If the methodology page describes a signal as being computed one way and the code does it another, that is a defect worth reporting — the whole point of publishing how each signal works is that the description can be checked against the behaviour.