statute-stack — Lattice component
Lattice

statute-stack

InventoryLedgerStructure

Citation hierarchy — federal / state / local rows with citation, headline obligation, and status.

Open in Playground
Variant

Use when three or four parallel jurisdictions need to read at a glance: each row carries the jurisdiction label, the citation, the obligation summary, and an effective-date marker.

citationreferencecompliance

When to use

  • Three parallel jurisdictions. Federal / state / local — or any three peer regimes — that the room must hold side-by-side. The hue rotation cues which row is which without a legend.
  • Citation plus obligation plus status. Each card is a three-part record: a citation pill, the headline obligation in prose, and a status pill — pill placement follows the card shape (row variants keep both on the header line; the narrow default splits them to opposite corners). Use when all three matter; for citation-only, reach for list-tabular.
  • Compliance briefings. Reach for statute-stack when the deck reads as a regulatory memo — counsel and operations need the same view of the same record at the same time.

When not to use

  • More than four rows. The three-column rail collapses past four jurisdictions. For longer registers move to lane (table form) or split across two statute-stack slides by topic.
  • Citation without obligation. Without the headline obligation sentence, the layout reads as a citation list. Use list-tabular spec when only the citation matters.
  • Mixed entry shapes. Every row needs the same three parts — citation, obligation, status. A row missing the status pill or with prose instead of a citation breaks the visual contract.

Common mistakes

  • Placing both the citation and status chip on the header line under the default rail look. Pill placement follows the card shape — the DEFAULT narrow rail splits citation (header line) and status (nested, opposite corner); hierarchy/bands/preemption keep BOTH trailing codes on the header line together. Using the row-variant's two-chip header under the default look misplaces the status chip.

Authoring

<!-- _class: statute-stack -->

## Jurisdiction comparison framing the three obligations.

- Federal `Citation`
  - Headline obligation in one sentence.
  - `Status or effective date`
- State `Citation`
  - Headline obligation in one sentence.
  - `Status or effective date`
- Local `Citation`
  - Headline obligation in one sentence.
  - `Status or effective date`

Slots

SlotSelectorRequiredDescription
headingh2yesSlide heading framing what the three rows compare.
rowsul > liyesOne li per jurisdiction. Lead with the jurisdiction label as a plain text first line; nested ul items carry the citation (inline code), obligation summary, and status (inline code).

Anatomy

┌─────────────────────────────────────────┐
│  header                                 │
│  Statute stack heading.                 │
│                                         │
│  ┌───────────────────────────────────┐  │
│  │ FEDERAL · cite        [in effect] │  │
│  │ Obligation prose for tier.        │  │
│  └───────────────────────────────────┘  │
│  ┌───────────────────────────────────┐  │
│  │ STATE · cite          [pending]   │  │
│  └───────────────────────────────────┘  │
│  footer                           1/19  │
└─────────────────────────────────────────┘

Variant decision rule

  • default (no modifier) — Three parallel jurisdictions in a compact rail — the base look, with the status pill split to the opposite corner from the citation.
  • hierarchy — The rows should visually communicate legal supremacy — ordered explicitly by which law controls.
  • bands — The jurisdictions read better as full-width horizontal strips than as a narrow column rail.
  • preemption — The relationship between jurisdictions is the point — which law yields to which — rather than just parallel listing.
  • lane — More than four jurisdictions need to fit, or the citation/obligation/status structure reads better as a literal table than as cards.

Variants

hierarchy — hierarchy

Ordered by supremacy.

<!-- _class: statute-stack hierarchy -->

## hierarchy orders the stack by supremacy.

- Federal `15 U.S.C. §6501` `In effect since 2000`
  - Verifiable parental consent for under-13 personal data.
- State `Cal. Civ. §1798.120` `Enforced 2023`
  - Opt-in for selling or sharing under-16 data; opt-out for over-16.
- Local `NYC §22-1201` `Effective 2023`
  - Bias-audit obligation for AEDTs used in employment decisions.
Explore in Playground

bands — Horizontal bands

Full-width strips.

<!-- _class: statute-stack bands -->

## bands strips each jurisdiction full-width.

- Federal `15 U.S.C. §6501` `In effect since 2000`
  - Verifiable parental consent for under-13 personal data.
- State `Cal. Civ. §1798.120` `Enforced 2023`
  - Opt-in for selling or sharing under-16 data; opt-out for over-16.
- Local `NYC §22-1201` `Effective 2023`
  - Bias-audit obligation for AEDTs used in employment decisions.
Explore in Playground

preemption — preemption

Which law yields.

<!-- _class: statute-stack preemption -->

## preemption marks which law yields.

- Federal `15 U.S.C. §6501` `Preempts state rules`
  - Sets the floor for under-13 personal data collection.
- State `Cal. Civ. §1798.120` `Survives preemption`
  - Stricter opt-in regime on top of COPPA's baseline.
- Local `NYC §22-1201` `Independent of preemption`
  - Bias-audit obligation distinct from privacy preemption scope.
Explore in Playground

lane — Markdown table

One column stack.

<!-- _class: statute-stack lane -->

## lane runs the stack in one column.

| Jurisdiction | Citation              | Headline obligation       | Status      |
| ------------ | --------------------- | ------------------------- | ----------- |
| Federal      | 15 U.S.C. §6501       | Parental consent <13 data | In effect   |
| State        | Cal. Civ. Code §1798  | Notice + opt-out + DSAR   | Enforced    |
| Local        | NYC §22-1201          | Annual AEDT bias audit    | Effective   |
Explore in Playground

Related