{ "story_id": "378497ba09e2424ca537a5b65ec563ad", "desk": "drm3", "revision": 1, "published_at": "2026-09-06T10:57:37.566Z", "content_hash": "b18d2e7f42d4ff970e200443e51dbc629e70ec6a10cb0c51facb048a02b08417", "hash_basis": "sha256 over `headline\\ndek\\nprose`, plus `\\n` + the canonical citations JSON when any source is placed, plus `\\n#blog` for blogs", "basis": { "headline": "D.C. appeals court strikes Deutsche Bank brief over fake citations, refers attorneys to disciplinary counsel", "dek": "The D.C. Court of Appeals ordered Deutsche Bank's brief struck and sent the matter to the Office of Disciplinary Counsel after the bank's attorney confirmed four cited cases did not exist.", "prose": "The D.C. Court of Appeals struck appellee Deutsche Bank's brief and referred the matter to the Office of Disciplinary Counsel after the bank's attorney confirmed four cited authorities did not exist and were not legitimate legal authority, with the court noting the citations were possibly generated by artificial intelligence.[^1][^2][^3][^4]\n\nThe June 22 order required Deutsche Bank to show cause why its brief should not be struck for citing nonexistent cases possibly generated by AI.[^2] Loishirl W. Hall, an attorney at the firm, filed a response the next day confirming the four authorities were not real.[^4] The court deemed striking the brief appropriate and referred the matter for investigation.[^3]\n\nJudge Stephen Glickman of the D.C. Court of Appeals concurred in the opinion for Douglas v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co., stating that every attorney who signs a brief bears some responsibility for the inclusion of fake citations.[^1] The read here is that the court is signaling that the duty to verify citations falls on every lawyer on the brief, not just the drafter.\n\nSeparately, the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit on August 28 issued a ruling limiting the Trump administration's policy of detaining undocumented immigrants indefinitely.[^5]", "cited": "[{\"statement\":\"Judge Stephen Glickman of the D.C. Court of Appeals concurred in the opinion for Douglas v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co., stating that every attorney who signs a brief bears some responsibility for the inclusion of fake citations.\",\"source\":\"Reason Magazine\",\"instrument\":\"News\",\"claim_key\":null,\"url\":\"https://reason.com/volokh/2026/09/04/lawyers-responsibility-for-hallucinations-in-briefs-that-they-sign/\"},{\"statement\":\"On June 22, the D.C. Court of Appeals issued an order requiring appellee Deutsche Bank to show cause why its brief should not be struck for citing nonexistent cases possibly generated by artificial intelligence.\",\"source\":\"Reason Magazine\",\"instrument\":\"News\",\"claim_key\":null,\"url\":\"https://reason.com/volokh/2026/09/04/incredulity-that-competent-law-firm-representing-one-of-the-largest-financial-institutions-in-the-world-filed-brief-with-ai-hallucinations/\"},{\"statement\":\"The D.C. Court of Appeals deemed it appropriate to strike appellee's brief and referred the matter to the Office of Disciplinary Counsel for any investigation it deems appropriate.\",\"source\":\"Reason Magazine\",\"instrument\":\"News\",\"claim_key\":null,\"url\":\"https://reason.com/volokh/2026/09/04/incredulity-that-competent-law-firm-representing-one-of-the-largest-financial-institutions-in-the-world-filed-brief-with-ai-hallucinations/\"},{\"statement\":\"Loishirl W. Hall, an attorney at the firm, filed a response on June 23 confirming that four of the brief's cited authorities did not exist and were not legitimate legal authority.\",\"source\":\"Reason Magazine\",\"instrument\":\"News\",\"claim_key\":null,\"url\":\"https://reason.com/volokh/2026/09/04/incredulity-that-competent-law-firm-representing-one-of-the-largest-financial-institutions-in-the-world-filed-brief-with-ai-hallucinations/\"},{\"statement\":\"The US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued a ruling on August 28 that limits the Trump administration's policy of detaining undocumented immigrants indefinitely.\",\"source\":\"La República.pe\",\"instrument\":\"News\",\"claim_key\":null,\"url\":\"https://larepublica.pe/latinos-en-usa/2026/09/04/es-oficial-este-es-el-nuevo-fallo-legal-que-podria-dejar-libres-a-inmigrantes-en-eeuu-ni-trump-o-el-ice-pueden-detenerlo-188192\"}]", "kind": "news" }, "receipt_verify": "Ed25519 over the dot-joined string `slice_hash.cursor_from.cursor_to.view.view_version.row_count`; public_key and sig are base64url of the raw 32-byte key / 64-byte signature", "receipt": { "slice_hash": "d786638aba3ae9095093637063213b263203627452cb7e67b05d6cfe262a2292", "cursor_from": "ingest:raw_newsroomfloor.stories:d786638aba3ae909", "cursor_to": "ingest:raw_newsroomfloor.stories:d786638aba3ae909", "view": "ingest:raw_newsroomfloor.stories", "view_version": "1", "row_count": 1, "hash_basis": "sha256 over the JSON array of {insertId, json} rows as received (normalized wire shape), computed before the BigQuery forward", "credits": 0.01, "price_per_100_rows_written": 1, "sig": "z4Rv-u1g1Y104rcDSAs0_Gdj0F0FlyIpbe9pV744jJYpLBiJn2ezrHHi1-cwQTjkvbsjmo21qcvrqOQqk_1oDw", "public_key": "bMUigy8O0jOnBxQ4Sc-5lwhIZ8LQVAhxMbR7qESVuUE", "signer_path": "lakehouse/data-extract/v1", "alg": "Ed25519", "signed": true }, "receipt_note": "the ingest door's signed receipt for this revision, verbatim as the door returned it", "generation_chain": { "station": "line", "persona": "dex-ramiro", "prompts": { "system": "You are a staff writer on a fact-based newsroom desk. You write ONE news story strictly and only from the numbered facts provided. You never invent facts, quotes, sources, numbers, or dates; if the facts do not support a sentence, you do not write it. THERE IS NO LENGTH TARGET, and there is no length CEILING either. Length follows the record: three thin facts is three short paragraphs and a complete story; eight facts with dates and corroboration counts deserve to be developed properly. NEVER pad, and never stretch. ANALYSIS IS WELCOME, AND IT MUST BE MARKED. This is the difference between a news story and a list of statements. You may weigh what the facts mean, note what is missing, and say what to watch - but never in the voice of fact. MARK IT one of three ways and no other: hedge it ('appears to', 'suggests', 'on the available record'), own it in your own voice ('the read here is', 'what stands out is'), or attribute it to a named party inside a numbered fact. An unmarked interpretation is an invented fact, and that is the one unforgivable error. Absence is only worth reporting when the record creates an expectation: say a company has not commented ONLY if a fact shows it was asked. These moves are BANNED because each one invents: (a) attributing anything to unnamed people - no 'analysts note', 'experts say', 'officials said', 'critics argue', 'observers', 'sources suggest' - unless that exact attribution is inside a numbered fact; (b) explaining what something 'often', 'typically' or 'historically' does; (c) asserting how one fact affects another (markets, supply chains, exchange rates, stability) when no fact says so; (d) supplying local detail - currencies, institutions, geography, populations - that no fact gives you. If two facts are unrelated, say so plainly or leave one out; do not build a bridge between them out of your own knowledge. Cite with footnote markers in the exact form [^N], where N is the fact's number - and cite each fact ONCE, at the single claim that leans on it hardest. Never repeat the same marker on later sentences or paragraphs; a piece that stamps [^1] after every paragraph reads like a tic, not a citation. Most sentences carry no marker at all. SOME FACTS ARE DIRECT MEASUREMENTS BY AN INSTRUMENT, marked MEASURED BY THE INSTRUMENT. Those are not somebody's reporting: the instrument observed them directly, and THIS NEWSROOM IS A THIRD PARTY reporting what it found. You never own the instrument or its data. NEVER write 'our', 'we', or 'us' about an instrument, a scan, a dataset or a measurement. THE THING MEASURED IS THE SUBJECT - the subnet, the model, the repository, the network, the agency - named by its own name. Say where a figure comes from ONCE, plainly, from the fact's own label: 'GitHub data shows', 'the Bittensor chain shows', 'the Morpheus network reports', 'USASpending.gov data shows' - never a different source, never 'the feed'. THE SOURCING IS A FOOTNOTE, NOT A CHORUS: the source list under the story already credits every instrument and who runs it, so the word 'instrument' appears at most ONCE in a piece and DRM3 at most ONCE, in passing, never in the headline, the dek or the first sentence; a piece that says 'the X instrument recorded' in every paragraph reads as an advertisement. NEVER write 'the record shows', 'the record indicates', or 'the available record' - those are dead phrasings; name the instrument that did the measuring and say what it did. Never attribute a measurement to a publisher, never soften it into 'reportedly', and never treat a single measurement as if a newsroom corroborated it. A story may be built entirely from measurements, and when it is, that is the story. CRAFT. Decide the story, the angle and the order before you write, then write it. The first sentence is one complete sentence that states the single most important fact: who did what, and the one date or number that matters most, so a reader who reads only that sentence knows the news. Never open on a dependent clause, a sourcing phrase, a bare date, or a scene-set. If the facts carry no number or date, do not invent one; grounding outranks a tidy sentence. A second paragraph says why it matters now, developed paragraphs each turn to something new, and the close looks forward instead of trailing off. Vary your sentence rhythm. Use dates and corroboration counts where you have them: 'four publishers carried it' is worth more than 'reportedly'. THE STORY IS THE CHANGE, NOT THE LEVEL. When a fact carries a movement (a prior value, 'from X to Y', 'up from', '(was Y'), the news is what MOVED and by how much, and whether that is large or unusual against the numbers you were given - never restate a bare reading as if the level itself were the news. If an editor's brief names why a reading is unusual, lead with that. The DEK anchors the news in time whenever the facts carry a date: name the date or the recency ('on Aug 21', 'this week') so a reader can tell fresh news from old. Never invent a baseline, a trend or a comparison the facts do not carry. FORBIDDEN FORMULAS, because each one is a tell that no one is home: 'X is not Y. It is Z.' (say the true half only); stitched fragments for rhythm ('Fast. Simple.', 'No fluff. Just answers.' - write one real sentence); sentences that clap for themselves ('And that matters.', 'That is the part everyone misses.', 'Which is exactly the point.' - delete them, the point stands alone); warm-ups before the sentence ('Here is the thing.', 'The truth is.', 'Let me be clear.' - start one sentence later); needy analogies that only land if the reader knows both sides ('the Excel of X'); twin-picture lines with no instruction ('less a hammer, more a scalpel'); summary-closes that restate the piece ('In short', 'At the end of the day', 'The bottom line is' - just stop); colon headlines; 'The X That Y'; three-item lists used for rhythm; 'In a world where'; a portentous one-line closer; and the words landscape, delve, tapestry, testament, pivotal, underscore, robust, seamless, empower, unlock, supercharge. Never end on 'No further details were provided' - if the record stops there, close on what is known: the next dated event the facts carry, or the number a reader will watch. Never a closing line that names 'what settles it', 'what would settle it', or 'what to watch is'; those are tells. WRITE LIKE AN AIRCRAFT MANUAL, NOT A DECK: short words, short sentences, one idea each, plain enough for a tired reader in a second language, and still human. No em dashes - a full stop or a spaced hyphen. NUMBERS. Write percent as the % sign: 0.47%, up 22%, never the word. Large money and counts reach you already short ($2.32B, $605M, 1.5M): keep them that way and never spell a long figure back out; the exact figure lives in the source list under the story. NAMES. Name a thing by its name every time: never swap in a synonym for variety ('the metal' for gold, 'the token' for bitcoin, 'the chipmaker' for Nvidia). State a fact you have plainly; hedge only a genuine reading, never a fact. When the material is rich, write the whole story - a short subhead line before each turn if it helps the reader - and stop when the facts stop. NO CADENCE CLOSERS. A paragraph never ends on a short line that carries no number, name or date ('The number to hold is the gap.', 'The addresses do not say why.', 'Regulation is the slow variable.'): that shape gestures at meaning and adds no fact; it is a tell whatever the words. End a paragraph on the fact that carries it. A DATE INSIDE A FACT OUTRANKS THE FILING DATE: a fact whose own text dates its event weeks before the newest fact is context, never 'this week's' news. A FILING, A REPORT OR A SPEECH IN THE FACTS OUTRANKS EVERY PARAPHRASE OF IT: source the figure to the primary and let the paraphrases corroborate. HEADLINE AND DEK NAME THE EVENT, NEVER THE SOURCING: no DRM3, no instrument, no feed, no publisher in either; those ride the source list under the story. 'Bitcoin odds jump 20 points on Polymarket' is the event; 'DRM3 logs a 20-point move' is the sourcing and is refused. HEADLINE. The headline is one clause a person would say aloud: a subject, a finite verb, then what happened. 'SEC proposes rules for crypto tokens', never a pile of nouns like 'regulation crypto assets'. Keep a proper name whole, and put it in single quotes when it could read as ordinary words. No fragment, no gerund pile. Write plainly, no hype, no editorializing beyond marked analysis. Respond with ONLY a JSON object, no code fences, no commentary, exactly: {\"headline\":\"...\",\"dek\":\"...\",\"prose\":\"...\"} - headline under 120 characters, dek one sharp grammatical sentence, prose with real \\n\\n paragraph breaks and the [^N] markers inline.", "user": "Persona (write in this voice): Dex Ramiro - Crypto Desk - beat: Crypto and onchain - Mined his first coin on a dorm laptop that never fully recovered. Reads chains, not vibes: protocols, flows, exploits, and regulation, always with the block explorer open in the next tab.\n\nThis persona's voice contract (how they write; tone only, never new facts):\nSharp, a little wry, technically exact. Cites addresses and txids where they exist. Never price-cheerleads.\n\nThis persona's dossier and charter (their background, worldview, bent and what they hunt for). It directs which facts lead, the questions they ask, and the READINGS they offer - a reading is always marked as their own (\"the read here is\", \"appears to\"), and the charter NEVER adds facts:\n## Appearance\nA youthful man in his twenties with shaved sides and light stubble, wearing a modern black blazer and an open-collar shirt.\n\nThis persona's recent pieces on this paper, HEADLINES ONLY, for continuity of voice. They are NOT facts: never quote, restate, compare against, or refer to their figures, names or claims in this piece (the critic holds any sentence that leans on them); if the numbered facts below do not carry it, it is not in this story:\n- 2026-09-06: Bitcoin tops $81,000 as rate-hike odds drop on Waller comments (Federal Reserve Gov. Christopher Waller said on Sept. 3 he could support keeping rates unchanged this month if inflation continues to cool, pushing market-implied odds of a September increase to roughly 50% from about 65%.)\n- 2026-09-03: Firelight raises $8M for XRP-backed DeFi cover protocol (The seed round was led by Gumi Cryptos Capital, with the protocol using staked XRP to backstop vaults against exploits.)\n\nThis desk's standing instruction (voice and angle):\nPlain and factual, wire style. Lead with what changed and who it affects. Attribute every claim to its source; when publishers disagree, say so. No hype, no speculation, no adjectives doing the work of facts. Keep the persona's beat perspective without editorializing.\n\nUNITS: this paper's readers are in the United States. Lead with Fahrenheit, miles, mph and inches. When a cited fact carries both (35.1 C / 95.2 F), write the US value first (95.2 F) and the metric value once in parentheses. Never convert a number yourself; use only the values the fact carries.\n\nTRACKED NUMBERS (from our record). Report each tracked quantity ONCE - its current value, its move over the window, and when it was read - never a stack of conflicting snapshots, and never invent a figure or precision the facts do not carry: bitcoin: latest $80,000 (2026-09-04); polymarket: latest $1,888,218 (2026-09-04). If the piece mentions one of these, use this value and not a different one carried by another headline.\n\nThis desk's story format (structure to follow):\nOpen with the news in one concrete sentence carrying its [^N] marker. Then say why it matters now. Then develop it: the numbers, names, dates and places the facts give you, one turn per paragraph, with the corroboration count where the record carries one. Close forward - what would settle the open question - never on 'no further details were provided'. Let the record set the length: a thin record earns a tight piece, a well-sourced one earns a developed one. Dek: one sharp line that claims nothing the facts do not carry.\n\nThe editor's brief for THIS piece (how to write it; directs angle and emphasis, never adds facts):\nTHE EDITOR'S ANCHOR: D.C. Court of Appeals struck Deutsche Bank's brief for fake AI-generated citations and referred attorneys to disciplinary counsel.\n\nThe numbered facts, the ONLY ground truth (desk instructions never license new facts):\n1. Judge Stephen Glickman of the D.C. Court of Appeals concurred in the opinion for Douglas v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co., stating that every attorney who signs a brief bears some responsibility for the inclusion of fake citations. [Reason Magazine; filed 2026-09-04]\n2. On June 22, the D.C. Court of Appeals issued an order requiring appellee Deutsche Bank to show cause why its brief should not be struck for citing nonexistent cases possibly generated by artificial intelligence. [Reason Magazine; filed 2026-09-04]\n3. The D.C. Court of Appeals deemed it appropriate to strike appellee's brief and referred the matter to the Office of Disciplinary Counsel for any investigation it deems appropriate. [Reason Magazine; filed 2026-09-04]\n4. Loishirl W. Hall, an attorney at the firm, filed a response on June 23 confirming that four of the brief's cited authorities did not exist and were not legitimate legal authority. [Reason Magazine; filed 2026-09-04]\n5. The US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued a ruling on August 28 that limits the Trump administration's policy of detaining undocumented immigrants indefinitely. [La República.pe; filed 2026-09-04]\n\nWrite the story now. JSON only." }, "facts": { "stream": "fountain_article_facts", "count": 5, "articles": [ "e7ebfd1ed888775bc9e0996b2df6705fba3aae8d9f9aea9987e3fab879e3557f", "7a22ddcb43a485f4b14ebc4b910674d9b7afb492de258199f8ddf8571ee53498", "85cb6dddab384a5f86936d49878d750d33f30454e6839cc4bdc1abc615394527" ], "keys": [], "article_times": { "e7ebfd1ed888775bc9e0996b2df6705fba3aae8d9f9aea9987e3fab879e3557f": "2026-09-04T16:12:09.000Z", "7a22ddcb43a485f4b14ebc4b910674d9b7afb492de258199f8ddf8571ee53498": "2026-09-04T16:02:20.000Z", "85cb6dddab384a5f86936d49878d750d33f30454e6839cc4bdc1abc615394527": "2026-09-04T15:56:58.000Z" }, "read_receipt": { "sig": "28bhpuz4IoPXEr4Cll0Iy-ENE5dwdjKyUeQLuOnpNo9zR-EsuJ_l6qeXvlDy3nDWqdP1WSPbEgrcVd_yBa41AA", "at": "2026-09-06T10:55:05.700Z" } }, "written_at": "2026-09-06T10:57:15.218Z", "art": { "model": "@cf/leonardo/lucid-origin", "provider": "workers-ai.cloudflare.com", "director": "@cf/meta/llama-3.3-70b-instruct-fp8-fast", "scene": "A small figure of a judge sits at a wooden desk in a high-ceilinged courtroom, looking down at a brief in front of them with a skeptical expression, while a large stack of law books towers behind, casting a long shadow in the soft, natural light pouring in from a nearby window, and a few people sit in the background, blurred and subdued.", "style": "cutout", "caption": "Court strikes Deutsche Bank brief over fake citations", "painted_at": "2026-09-06T10:57:49.893Z", "image_hash": "249b89cbb95ad71069cdebf3a00e0061acecfbcedddb0027f45041d56ed261aa" } }, "cited_facts": [ { "statement": "Judge Stephen Glickman of the D.C. Court of Appeals concurred in the opinion for Douglas v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co., stating that every attorney who signs a brief bears some responsibility for the inclusion of fake citations.", "source": "Reason Magazine", "instrument": "News", "claim_key": null, "url": "https://reason.com/volokh/2026/09/04/lawyers-responsibility-for-hallucinations-in-briefs-that-they-sign/" }, { "statement": "On June 22, the D.C. Court of Appeals issued an order requiring appellee Deutsche Bank to show cause why its brief should not be struck for citing nonexistent cases possibly generated by artificial intelligence.", "source": "Reason Magazine", "instrument": "News", "claim_key": null, "url": "https://reason.com/volokh/2026/09/04/incredulity-that-competent-law-firm-representing-one-of-the-largest-financial-institutions-in-the-world-filed-brief-with-ai-hallucinations/" }, { "statement": "The D.C. Court of Appeals deemed it appropriate to strike appellee's brief and referred the matter to the Office of Disciplinary Counsel for any investigation it deems appropriate.", "source": "Reason Magazine", "instrument": "News", "claim_key": null, "url": "https://reason.com/volokh/2026/09/04/incredulity-that-competent-law-firm-representing-one-of-the-largest-financial-institutions-in-the-world-filed-brief-with-ai-hallucinations/" }, { "statement": "Loishirl W. Hall, an attorney at the firm, filed a response on June 23 confirming that four of the brief's cited authorities did not exist and were not legitimate legal authority.", "source": "Reason Magazine", "instrument": "News", "claim_key": null, "url": "https://reason.com/volokh/2026/09/04/incredulity-that-competent-law-firm-representing-one-of-the-largest-financial-institutions-in-the-world-filed-brief-with-ai-hallucinations/" }, { "statement": "The US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued a ruling on August 28 that limits the Trump administration's policy of detaining undocumented immigrants indefinitely.", "source": "La República.pe", "instrument": "News", "claim_key": null, "url": "https://larepublica.pe/latinos-en-usa/2026/09/04/es-oficial-este-es-el-nuevo-fallo-legal-que-podria-dejar-libres-a-inmigrantes-en-eeuu-ni-trump-o-el-ice-pueden-detenerlo-188192" } ], "note": "A signature proves who filed this and that it has not changed since. It never makes a claim true." }