Stop 2 of 8 · Weekly
Policy drafting
The model policy and the statute in, a draft in the manual's format out, with a change log and the lines counsel has to rule on.
The section that is four years old
Every manual section Reyes owns is in one of three states: current, out of step with the state model policy, or out of step with a statute that changed last session. Finding out which takes an afternoon of reading three documents in parallel, and that afternoon is why sections sit at four years old.
Claude reads the three documents in parallel in about a minute. What it produces is a gap list, and a gap list is the only thing that makes the drafting quick, because it turns a rewrite into six specific changes.
The four documents
| Goes in | Comes out |
|---|---|
| Current manual section, state model policy, statute | The gap list, in order of legal exposure |
| The gap list, plus the manual's formatting rules | A draft in the department's numbering |
| The current section and the draft | The change log, one row per change |
Attached are three documents: our current manual section, our state's model policy for the same subject, and the statute it references. List every place they differ. For each one give me the topic, what our section says now, what the model or the statute requires or recommends, and whether the difference is a legal requirement, a recommended practice or a wording preference. Put legal requirements first. Do not draft anything yet. [upload the three documents]
Using the gap list above and the formatting of our current section, draft the revised section. Keep our numbering scheme and our defined terms. Change only what the gap list calls for and leave the rest of our language alone, including anything that reads awkwardly. Mark with REVIEW BY COUNSEL every sentence whose wording turns on the statute, a court decision or liability. End with the assumptions you made about our department that I need to confirm.
Compare our current section against this draft and give me a change log as a table: subsection, what it said, what it says now, why it changed, and the source, which is the model policy paragraph, the statute section or my instruction. One row per substantive change. Ignore punctuation and formatting. Add a final row counting the changes marked for counsel.
Write the cover memo that goes to legal counsel with this draft. Half a page. State the section being revised, the reason for the revision, the number of changes, and then list only the lines marked REVIEW BY COUNSEL with the specific question I need answered for each one. Ask for a written response. Make no argument about what the answer should be.
Where it goes after you
Routing is the part that stalls. Reyes writes the same four names into the same platform every time: the training sergeant who has to build the lesson, counsel, the deputy chief who signs, and the accreditation manager who has to file the proof. Build the routing note once from the change log and the section moves.