authority-chain

When to use

• Provenance is the argument. Use when the audience needs to see exactly where a rule comes from and how it has been interpreted. The chain itself is the evidence that the obligation is grounded, not invented.
• Tier labels carry the read. Statute, regulation, guidance, case — each tier has a different legal weight. The left-rail label tells the audience what kind of source they are looking at before they read the citation. Every row shares one rail: it is the same width down the chain and widens to the longest single word in any label (Enforcement), so every citation starts at the same left edge.
• Three to five tiers; six only without glosses. The chain reads top-to-bottom on a single canvas. A full row — a one-word tier label, its citation and a one-line gloss — holds five tiers on a laptop slide, and the sixth clips. Six tiers fit only as label-and-citation rows with no gloss. Keep each label to one word, or a short pair like Case law: a label that wraps in the left rail (Agency guidance) costs every row a line, and the chain then holds four. Past that, group sub-cases into the parent row's gloss or split into two slides. A chain that does not fit runs long at its tail and is reported as clipped; a row never shrinks below its own text, so one card never draws over the next.

When not to use

• Flat list of citations. If the rows have no tier hierarchy, use list takeaway numbered or regulatory-update. authority-chain earns its chrome only when the descent from statute to case is the point.
• Missing citation chip. The inline-code citation is the row's anchor; without it the gloss reads as opinion. Always cite, even for guidance and case rows.
• Out-of-order tiers. The chain reads as a descent: statute first, case last. Reversing it or skipping a tier breaks the metaphor the audience is using to follow you.

Common mistakes

• Reversing the order of the nested citation and gloss lines, or writing the citation as plain text instead of inline code. The citation chip is matched by li:first-child:has(> code:only-child) — it must be the FIRST nested item and contain ONLY inline code; a citation written second, or as plain text, doesn't get the citation-chip treatment.
• A trail citation or tier label with a word longer than its column. A trail column is the stage split by the tier count, so its limit is the longest WORD. A citation wraps at its spaces, after a hyphen and around a dash (16 C.F.R. / Part 312); a word between those cannot break. Four tiers hold a 26-character citation word at laptop, 23 at huddle, 17 at conference and 13 at hall, and a tier label two to four characters fewer (it is bold and tracked). A longer word widens its column, squeezes the others, and past their slack pushes the last column off the slide. lint:deck names it as trail-budget. Break the citation at a space, or use the default chain, whose body runs the full width.

Authoring

<!-- _class: authority-chain -->

## Rule name — the chain, tier by tier.

1. Statute
   - `Citation reference`
   - One-line gloss naming the body that issued it and what it does.
2. Regulation
   - `Citation reference`
   - One-line gloss naming the agency rule.
3. Guidance
   - `Citation reference`
   - One-line gloss naming the staff guidance.
4. Case
   - `Citation reference`
   - One-line gloss naming the precedent.

Slots

Anatomy

┌─────────────────────────────────────────┐
│  header                                 │
│  Authority descent heading.             │
│                                         │
│  ┌────────────┐                         │
│  │ TIER 1     │  § Statute — citation   │
│  │ TIER 2     │    Regulation — cite    │
│  │ TIER 3     │    Case law — cite      │
│  └────────────┘                         │
│  footer                           1/19  │
└─────────────────────────────────────────┘

Variant decision rule

• default (no modifier) — A plain descent from statute to case — the base look for a straightforward, single-line chain.
• branching — The authority forks — several regulations, guidance, or cases all trace back to the SAME originating statute — shown as one tier with multiple citations instead of a strict one-to-one descent.
• trail — The descent should read as a lightweight breadcrumb rather than a heavier, chrome-forward chain. Each tier gets a column, so keep citations short or breakable at spaces; a large venue narrows the column (13 characters a word at hall with four tiers).
• pyramid — The tiers carry different legal weight and that hierarchy of force should be visually apparent, not just their order — tier width narrows from statute down to case.
• bracket — The tiers should read as one clamped, continuous block — a tighter, seamless rail (zero gap, squared corners, a doubled outer edge) instead of the default's separated cards.

Variants

<!-- _class: authority-chain branching -->

## branching forks the chain where authority splits.

1. Statute
   - `15 U.S.C. §6501` COPPA, 1998
   - `16 C.F.R. Part 312` FTC implementing rule
   - `FTC Six-Step Compliance Plan` staff guidance
   - `In re Epic Games · 2022` $245M consent order
   - `In re YouTube/Google · 2019` $170M consent order

<!-- _class: authority-chain trail -->

## trail walks the chain as a breadcrumb.

1. Statute
   - `15 U.S.C. §6501`
   - Verifiable parental consent for under-13 data.
2. Regulation
   - `16 C.F.R. Part 312`
   - FTC implementing rule.
3. Guidance
   - `FTC Six-Step Plan`
   - Cited in every consent order.
4. Case
   - `Epic Games · 2022`
   - $245M consent order.

<!-- _class: authority-chain pyramid -->

## pyramid weights the tiers by force.

1. Statute
   - `15 U.S.C. §6501`
   - Congress, 1998 — consent for under-13 data.
2. Regulation
   - `16 C.F.R. Part 312`
   - FTC implementing rule.
3. Guidance
   - `FTC Six-Step Plan`
   - Staff guidance, non-binding.
4. Case
   - `In re Epic Games · 2022`
   - $245M consent order.

<!-- _class: authority-chain bracket -->

## bracket groups the tiers by actor.

1. Treaty
   - `Charter of Fundamental Rights, Art. 8`
   - EU primary law — protection of personal data is a fundamental right.
2. Regulation
   - `GDPR (EU) 2016/679`
   - Directly applicable across all member states; sets the Art. 83 fine tiers.
3. Guidance
   - `EDPB Guidelines 04/2022`
   - Harmonized methodology for calculating administrative fines.
4. Decision
   - `DPC v. Meta · 2023`
   - €1.2B fine — the largest GDPR penalty to date.

Related

• regulatory-updateperiod-bounded changelog rather than a single rule's lineage
• listtakeaway numbered: flat enumeration of requirements without tier hierarchy
• list-stepsthe rows are procedural steps rather than authority tiers