---
example: not-a-real-card
purpose: worked example showing the four-questions answered, the spine populated, the slab earned
status: reference only — does not appear in cards_v2/cards/
---

# Worked example — "the air-quality litigant"

This is an unfinished sim used to demonstrate the builder-card skill
in action. It is not a real card on disk. Builders can use it as
training to see what good answers to the four questions look like.

## The four questions

**1. Persona.** Anjali Rao, environmental-impact attorney at a
two-person firm. Six contested cases per year against industrial
operators with deeper pockets. Recent loss because her client's
home air-quality data was excluded as inadmissible — the chain of
custody from the consumer-grade sensor was unprovable.

**2. Dramatic moment.** Cross-examination at the merits hearing.
Opposing counsel moves to exclude the air-quality data on the same
chain-of-custody grounds that lost the prior case. Anjali's
response invokes the substrate-sealed sensor identity, the public
anchor, the FRE 902(14) self-authentication framework — and the
court denies the motion to exclude. The hearing proceeds on the
science.

**3. Cluster.** Legal — solo/small-firm, environmental-impact
specialty. Hearing-room aesthetic. Court-clerk robot persona. The
substrate connects the litigant's chain of evidence to the
admissibility argument the prior loss could not make.

**4. Build-on.** Citizen-science meshes (40s) feeding evidence into
litigation chains. Anjali's clients — homeowners, neighborhood
associations, small-water-system operators — host their own sensor
meshes and the substrate makes the meshes admissible without the
lab-grade equipment-cost barrier. The building-on layer is the
mesh-to-court adapter pattern.

## Drafted prose (incomplete — for example only)

```
<!-- step.id = landing -->
## Minutes 0–2 — Landing

You're Anjali, environmental-impact attorney at a two-person firm.
Six contested cases per year against industrial operators with
deeper pockets. Six weeks ago you lost a case because your client's
home air-quality data was excluded as inadmissible — the
consumer-grade sensor's chain of custody was unprovable.

The hook on Merkle Trust's landing names what you have been
carrying alone: the merits of your case never reached the bench.
The chain of custody is what is supposed to make the merits
reachable.

<!-- step.id = first_concrete -->
## Minutes 5–13 — The first concrete moment

A sandboxed Merkle Trust loads with the synthetic Pickett Avenue
case: 200-household neighborhood mesh, two years of readings, one
documented anomaly aligned with a permit-violation event. The
court clerk on the desk animation places six pieces of evidence
under the seal — the sensors' attested identities, their
authoritative time stamps, their merkle-anchored daily ceremonies,
the public chain receipts.

The walk takes the cross-examination scenario. Opposing counsel:

> "Your honor, we move to exclude the air-quality data on chain of
> custody grounds. There is no way to verify these readings have
> not been edited."

Your scripted response:

> "Each reading carries the sealing sensor's cryptographic identity,
> the timestamp, the public key. The chain is verifiable from any
> browser the bench operates. The mesh's daily anchors are on the
> public chain; the bench can verify each one independently. We
> invite the court — and opposing counsel — to do so before
> proceeding."

The bench rules:

═══════════════════════════════════════════════
  RULING ON MOTION TO EXCLUDE — Pickett Avenue
═══════════════════════════════════════════════

  "Hash-verified sensor data with public-chain
   anchoring is self-authenticating under
   Rule 902(14). Expert-witness testimony is
   not required when verification is
   reproducible on the record.

   Motion to exclude — DENIED."

═══════════════════════════════════════════════
```

## What's still needed

This draft is missing:

- The ceremony step (will reuse 40s's mesh-aggregation pattern)
- The is-this-real bullets (will adapt from 40e + 40s)
- The close (will pick the bar-association partner kit + the
  citizen-science cross-referral kit)
- The full sidecar JSON
- The truth-claim audit (Anjali's specific case shape against the
  substrate's actual mesh capabilities)

A real submission would complete each section. The skill helps the
builder converge through dialogue.

## Truth-claim audit (partial)

- "Each reading carries the sealing sensor's cryptographic identity"
  → real per 40s: every reading is signed by the sensor's
  device-bound public key
- "Public-chain anchoring" → real per 40s + 40k: mesh aggregates to
  coordinator anchor; coordinator anchor goes to BSV via rust-sv
- "Self-authenticating under Rule 902(14)" → established in 40e and
  40f for hash-verified digital records; the citation extends
  cleanly to sensor data
- The motion-to-exclude denial language → would need real-court
  precedent or framing as build-on; opposing counsel might still
  argue scientific-validity of the sensor calibration, which is a
  different question than chain-of-custody

The audit shows where the sim builds cleanly on existing canon
(40e, 40f, 40s, 40k) and where the sim needs honest framing as
"what the foundation makes possible" rather than "what is
established today."

## Inspiration credits

This example draws on:

- 40e's solo-attorney FRE 902(14) cross-examination scenario
- 40f's forensic-accountant deposition pattern
- 40k's cross-border one-chain visibility argument
- 40s's citizen-science mesh aggregation

No new public figures credited. If a real version of this card were
submitted, any credited public figures (e.g., a notable
environmental attorney whose framing inspired the persona) would
follow the SKILL.md credit format.

## What this example demonstrates

- The four questions converge on a viable sim shape.
- The dramatic moment earns its ASCII slab (the court ruling).
- The cluster choice (legal) aligns with existing aesthetic conventions.
- The build-on names a real adjacent capability (40s mesh) and
  invites extension.
- The truth-claim audit is honest about what is canonical vs.
  what is build-on.
- The credits are accurate.

A real submission would complete the prose, complete the sidecar,
finalize the audit, and route through the silo voting flow as a
prose-only change (no schema changes; uses existing cluster, theme,
robot persona).