# Comparison of Statutory Versions — Blank Template

For arguments comparing the current text to a predecessor, an amendment,
or a parallel provision.

```
STATUTE:  [name and citation]
PROVISION: [section]

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

VERSION 1 (current / your version / current amendment)
─────────
Date in force: [date]
Text:
  [exact text]

VERSION 2 (predecessor / alternative / parallel)
─────────
Date in force: [date]
Text:
  [exact text]

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

SPECIFIC DIFFERENCES

Words added in Version 1:
  [list]

Words removed in Version 1:
  [list]

Words changed in Version 1:
  [list, showing before → after]

Structural changes:
  [any reorganization, renumbering, etc.]

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE CHANGES

For each change, ask:

1. Is the change substantive or cosmetic?
   [If cosmetic — no interpretive weight
    If substantive — continue]

2. What was the change meant to achieve?
   [Consult Hansard, committee reports, or infer from context]

3. Does the change codify or overrule prior case law?
   [If so, what case law?]

4. Does the change signal a shift in purpose?
   [Or preserve prior purpose?]

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

APPLICATION TO CURRENT INTERPRETATION QUESTION

The change from Version 2 to Version 1 supports the following
interpretation:

  [interpretation]

Because:
  [reasoning drawing on the specific change]

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

CASE LAW UNDER VERSION 2

Cases interpreting Version 2:
  [citation] — [holding relevant to the current question]
  [citation] — [holding relevant to the current question]

Are these cases still relevant under Version 1?
  [ ] Yes — Version 1 preserves the interpreted language
  [ ] Partially — Version 1 modifies but doesn't displace
  [ ] No — Version 1 changes what the cases interpreted

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

ARGUMENT

Based on the comparison, the interpretation of Version 1 [the current
provision] should be [X] because:

  1. [Reason based on the change]
  2. [Reason based on the change]
  3. [Reason based on the change]

The alternative interpretation [Y] fails because it either:
  - Ignores the significance of the change from Version 2, OR
  - Treats the change as merely cosmetic when it was substantive, OR
  - Applies Version 2 case law to a materially changed provision
```