Does this document cite the law of a country it does not claim to be from?
Twenty-three tools in this estate are US forks of UK originals. Every one of them parses. Four were broken loudly by a find-and-replace that ran over identifiers, and were repaired. The quiet damage is worse, and no parser can see it:
fallhr-ustells an American employer their obligations come from “Working Time Regulations 1998, Equality Act 2010, DOL Code of Practice, and HMRC PAYE/RTI rules”.
The localiser swapped ACAS for the DOL and left the British statutes standing. Elsewhere it wrote
"CCPA/Data Protection Act 2018 compliance" — prepending the Californian act to the UK one rather
than replacing it.
A compliance tool giving the wrong country’s rules is not a cosmetic problem. Run over all 23 forks, this finds 11 still citing UK-only law.
Terms are graded. A hard marker is a body or statute that governs only one country — HMRC, IR35, the Equality Act 2010. A soft one can legitimately appear anywhere: a US firm really does owe GDPR duties to European customers and really can charge VAT on EU sales. Soft terms are surfaced for a person to read and never counted as failures.
It also refuses to check what it was not told: with no jurisdiction claimed, the result is reported as unchecked, never as clean.
node check.mjs US page.html
54 tests, mutation gate 27/27 killed, no baselines, CI pinned witness@v0.2.
It finds the citations. It does not rewrite them. Turning UK employment law into US employment law needs somebody who knows US employment law — inventing it would be worse than leaving it visible.
MIT · AI-Native Solutions