“In force” is not proof of the applicable version
Validity is shown because hiding it is worse. Reading it as a final judgment is also worse. Evidence has grades; the badge is only one of them.
In two lines
- Read the badge with its evidence: linked to a text, named, or source-badge only.
- A repeal without a visible successor is still a claim until the original is opened.
Lawyers asked for a validity badge because working on a repealed text that looks current ruins a brief before it reaches court. The badge exists for that. Then people started reading it as if it were the court.
It is not. Validity in the corpus comes from the source badge and from relationships extracted between documents. That is indexing work. It is not a ruling that this is the version that applies to your facts today.
Three grades of evidence
- Linked: the repealing or amending text is a corpus document you can open.
- Named: the successor is named, with no file link. You check the reference.
- Badge only: the status comes from the source, without identifying what repealed or amended it.
The difference is not cosmetic. Building a plea on “repealed” without a visible successor leaves you exposed if the other side opens the text you thought was gone. Trusting “in force” on a badge alone leaves you exposed to an amendment that has not been linked yet.
Unconfirmed, and not applicable
Unconfirmed means the library has not settled it. It is written that way so the gap is not filled with false certainty. “Not applicable” is for types that do not take a validity state: a principle, a gazette issue, some judgments. Neutrality is more honest there than a green badge.
Open the original. Read the evidence. If doubt remains, it is professional doubt, not a defect in the screen.