---
title: "List candidate imputations from the publication"
url: "https://ailawframework.com/practice/defamation-and-media-law/list-candidate-imputations-from-the-publication"
type: "task"
site: "AI Law Framework"
id: "A33-T1-R1"
practice_area: "Defamation & Media Law"
tier: "red"
lawyer_review: "required"
last_reviewed: "2026-10-22"
---

# List candidate imputations from the publication

> From the article, post or broadcast, list candidate meanings an ordinary reader might take, with the words that support each meaning.

Canonical page: https://ailawframework.com/practice/defamation-and-media-law/list-candidate-imputations-from-the-publication  
Last reviewed: 2026-10-22

Site index for agents: https://ailawframework.com/llms.txt

## Key facts

| Fact | Value |
| --- | --- |
| Practice area | [Defamation & Media Law](https://ailawframework.com/practice/defamation-and-media-law.md) |
| Human involvement | Red: Lawyer writes; AI may check, clarify or collect data |
| How AI is used | From the article, post or broadcast, list candidate meanings an ordinary reader might take, with the words that support each meaning. |
| What the lawyer must review | Derive each imputation from the raw publication; they are the claim Do not plead a generated meaning you have not adopted |
| Written for / versions | 1 jurisdiction versions below |

## Checking plan

**Lawyer review required**

The responsible lawyer reviews the work against the instructions, sources and intended use.

- What the AI does: Potential support includes preparing preliminary structure or wording. Confirm the tool’s capability and permitted scope.
- What the lawyer does: Set the scope, verify the evidence, resolve exceptions and approve the final output for its intended use.
- Who reviews: Responsible lawyer with competence in the matter
- Basis: Suggested checking approach based on the task guidance. Complete the assessment for the actual tool, information and jurisdiction.
- Why: The plan reflects the described work and review requirements. Policy colours are not used to determine permission or checking.

## Checks the lawyer makes

1. Calculate operative dates independently from the current rule and actual triggering event. Check exceptions and record the verified deadline.
2. Confirm the output against the client’s instructions and the complete relevant source material, including omissions or contradictions.
3. Resolve exceptions and record the responsible lawyer’s approval of the exact output and intended use.

## Notes

- Confirm the required checking with the responsible lawyer before work starts. The checking approach does not establish permission to use AI.

## Forms and precedents for this task

| Form or precedent | Kind | AI level | Summary |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| [Publication capture worksheet](https://ailawframework.com/precedents/defamation-and-media-law/us-publication-capture-worksheet.md) | Checklist | Yellow | A worksheet for recording a publication before a correction demand: the words, the URL, the time, and who could see it. It does not decide what the statements mean. |

Signed-in accounts can read the full text of each one.

## Jurisdiction versions

| Jurisdiction | Level |
| --- | --- |
| [United States](https://ailawframework.com/practice/defamation-and-media-law/list-candidate-imputations-from-the-publication/united-states.md) | Yellow |

*Practice guidance for planning and review. Confirm current primary sources and the requirements of the actual matter. This is general information, not legal advice.*