# Chapter 5 · Writing pages (3): FAQ, process, deadline and case-law pages > GEO Playbook · Law Firms v1.0 · Canlah AI · CC BY 4.0 · Web page: https://canlah.ai/playbook/law/fact-pages/ > Markdown edition for AI assistants, same content as the web page. Figures are code blocks (wireframe / mermaid / bars / steps / split); "→" links open the matching section on the web, and the same URL with .md is its Markdown edition. The abbreviations for this chapter's numbers match 5.1: "L3" = the 30 questions collected on 2026-09-29 (8 practice areas other than family, plus 5 questions on choosing a lawyer and legal fees that come up across every practice area; ChatGPT is asked each question twice, independently — the main text gives run 1, the brackets give run 2; AI Mode is asked each question once); "the family set" = the 22 family-law questions from the public dataset R1/R2 (collected 2026-09-23, each question asked once; AI Mode only ran the 12 questions in R1). "Law-firm websites" are entities labelled by hand, by domain; L3's page types are labelled heuristically by URL and title; an observation held up by only one page or one question is marked "single case". The two legs have different denominators — read only who each one cites, not which number is bigger. ## 5.9 ⑥ One question, one page: the first sentence of the answer stands on its own **What you'll do in this section**: one high-frequency question gets one URL; the H1 is the buyer's original question, and the sentence right under the H1 gives the conclusion; the answer states only the general rule and never makes the call for the reader's own case; when someone asks for a lawyer publicly online, the public area gives only general information, and any quote or offer of engagement goes out privately. When you're done, you'll have a set of short-answer pages that match up sentence for sentence against the statute and the court's pages, and you'll know which leg this page type — along with the rest of this chapter's page types — mainly feeds for law firms. ```wireframe id=pt06 Figure: one question, one page, short version; what AI copies is the answer paragraph right under the H1 H1 | The buyer's original question, word for word | req Answer paragraph | First sentence gives Yes/No or a figure, conditions in the 2nd and 3rd sentences, 40–90 words | req,cite,law Boundary sentence | Which part cannot be judged online, and who judges it | opt Source line | Source + check date | req,law Own-fact paragraph | Sub-heading "At ", 1–2 sentences of own facts only | opt Byline and date | One line | opt Related questions | 3–4 items, each linking to its own URL | opt ``` ```split Figure: for every cell of one-question-one-page, law firms have a way of writing it that doesn't make the call for the reader or cross the line Don't write it this way || Write it this way First sentence: "it depends" || First sentence: Yes/No or a number, with the conditions in sentences 2 and 3 "In your situation, you can get a divorce" || State the general rule; end with "Whether this applies to you is for a lawyer to decide after reviewing your documents." Source given only as "under the law" || Link to that section on SSO or the court's FAQ page, and give the check date The firm's own section states a win rate, or "extensive experience" with no evidence || The firm's own section states only whether the firm handles this kind of case, and how it charges Quoting a price or inviting engagement directly under a public post || The public area answers only general questions; quote the price privately ``` What the figure cannot show: for law firms, this type mainly feeds AI Mode; the page types in 5.10, 5.12–5.14 and 5.16 do the same (the page type in 5.11 is not measured, and the case-law page in 5.15 is a separate story). Across the five question types in L3 — process, definition, rules, checklist and calculation — 18 questions in total, ChatGPT run 1 cited law-firm websites 0/92 (run 2: 1/103), citing court, Ministry of Law and SSO pages instead; AI Mode cited law-firm websites 28/76 across the same five types. Of the family set's 22 questions, 13 cover process, requirements, definitions or rules, and ChatGPT cited not a single law firm. So to clients we say only one sentence: this type of page feeds the Google AI leg; whether ChatGPT cites a law firm on process or rules questions is something we do not promise. On ChatGPT's side, the slot that one-question-one-page occupies goes to official FAQ pages instead: in L3, ChatGPT run 1 cited official FAQ pages (heuristically labelled) 5/146 (run 2: 5/161), AI Mode 0/122. Law-firm-specific approach: 1. Treat short-answer pages as publicity. In the Law Society's Guidance Note's own words, "A law practice’s website can be used as an advertising tool or to provide generic legal information" (GN 6.1.1 para 31) [Statute text; see Appendix A.3] — the generic legal information on the website sits right next to the firm's own section and the contact details, and this book treats all of it as publicity [Conservative line (not statute text)]. So every sentence on a short-answer page — the answer section, the firm's own section, related questions, the title, the meta description — goes through chapter 1's word list (Appendix B.3). 2. The answer is generic information. The same paragraph goes on to say, "If legal advice is given, a law practice must realise that it could give rise to attendant obligations and risks in law." [Statute text; see Appendix A.3]. Where the question itself contains specific facts ("my husband…", "the company gave no notice before…"), the page still answers only the general rule, and case-specific advice is kept for the consultation; the page does not write "you're sure to get it" or "a case like this is a guaranteed win" (r 44(2)(d)) [Statute text; see Appendix A.1]. 3. The firm's own section states only facts about the firm itself: whether it handles this kind of case, which procedural stage it takes it on at, and how it charges. Write fees in the format from chapter 1, 1.2; if a sentence or two can't cover it, just link to the single-matter fee page in 5.5. Do not write a win rate or win count (r 43(1)(b)(ii)) [Statute text; see Appendix A.1], and do not write a case volume that reads as a track record [Conservative line (not statute text)] (see chapter 1, 1.4). 4. Check numbers such as time limits and monetary caps word for word against the original section on SSO or the original court page, and give the check date on the page; where the original text has not been checked, write only the section number and the link for now, with no figure. 5. When someone asks publicly online for a lawyer (a forum, social media, a Q&A platform), the public area answers only general questions, and any quote or offer of engagement goes out privately, out of view of anyone who did not ask for it [Conservative line (not statute text)] — the basis is a piece of Law Society guidance from the old-rules era (the *Law Gazette* article of August 2012, para 9; see Appendix A.6), which the current Practice Directions do not include. When someone asks publicly off-site for a lawyer, it is the firm's own lawyer who replies under this rule; we reach out only to editors, directory operators and media, and never send messages to potential clients on a firm's behalf (see chapter 6, 6.1). > **Example** (family law) The court's FAQ page on ask.gov.sg, "Must I engage a lawyer for my divorce application?": the H1 is the original question, the whole page runs to about 40 words, and the answer sits right under the H1 — the first sentence (beginning "There is no legal requirement…") was restated almost word for word by ChatGPT (family R1, single case). Of ChatGPT's 60 citations in family R1, 11 came from ask.gov.sg (9 court FAQs, 2 LifeSG). Even this short, it still gets cited: what matters is not the length, but that the first sentence stands on its own. See （→ 通用版 5.17 一问一页（pt06）） for the general-edition approach. ## 5.10 ⑦ Requirements and eligibility page: can it be done, and what must be met **What you'll do in this section**: write the statutory requirements as a "Fact / What it means / When it applies / Source" table, with a section number on every row; the requirements are the general rule, never written as a judgement on the reader's own case; the family requirements page presents mediation and divorce by mutual agreement as the primary options. When you're done, you'll have a requirements page shaped to match the court's requirements table, with figures such as time limits filled in only once the rule text has been checked. ```wireframe id=pt07 Figure: eligibility and process page; AI most often copies the verdict in the first H2's first sentence and the steps table H1 | Task-style statement | req Byline and date line | Named reviewer for personal-safety pages; "Last updated" for others | opt Conclusion block | Five-cell spec strip + own sentence + market sentence | req,law H2 main question | First sentence answers directly, ≤35 words | req,cite Steps table | Step / Result, each row states the duration and the number of visits | req,cite Conditions H2 | Numbered H3s covering every case, or a fact × explanation × when-it-applies table | req Bring-list H2 | 3–8 items | opt Itemised fees H2 | Item or service / Fees | req Parts that cannot be judged online H2 | 40–80 words | opt,law Branches after assessment H2 | Four-column branch table; the price cell states the final price or "confirmed after assessment" | opt Risks and exceptions H2 | General risks only, never written as an individual diagnosis | opt,law Alternatives H2 | Option / When / Time / Price | opt Who makes the final call H2 | Who decides, and at what point, ≤50 words | opt FAQ | H3 questions, 40–60 words each | opt ``` ```split Figure: for every cell of the requirements page, there's a way to write it that states only the general rule and doesn't make the call for the reader Don't write it this way || Write it this way Requirements stated only as "it depends" || List the statutory facts one by one, each with a section number "Meet these three conditions and you can get a divorce" || "Whether you meet them is for a lawyer to decide after reviewing your documents." Requirements table with no source || Link each row to that section on SSO or the original court page, and give the check date Writing a time-limit figure before the rule is checked || Before checking, write only the section number and the link, with no figure The family requirements page says "fight it all the way" || Mediation and divorce by mutual agreement are presented as the primary options ``` What the figure cannot show: why the table has to follow the shape of the court's own table — on family-law questions, the court requirements table in the example is cited by both legs, and cited more than any other page; a law firm's own requirements page shows up only in AI Mode (family R1: two law-firm pages, one on divorcing within 3 years of marriage and one on grounds for divorce, were each cited by AI Mode 1 time; the former sits on a separate keyword microsite run by a law firm). The law-firm version follows the shape of the court's table with one extra column for the source, and it feeds the AI Mode leg (see 5.9). Law-firm-specific approach: 1. The column headers are `Fact / What it means / When it applies / Source`: the first three columns line up with the court's requirements page's own headers (Fact / What it means / When you can apply), and the law-firm version adds one more column for the source (the URL of that section on SSO + the check date). 2. In the five-cell conclusion block, `Who decides` names the court (or the relevant authority), never the firm; `Who it is not for` states clearly which situations the firm does not take on. A qualifier such as "we only handle uncontested divorces" needs to be stated: the Law Society's own example is that a firm with no experience in contested divorce, which handles only uncontested divorce, and whose TV advertisement does not state this, can reasonably be treated as omitting a material fact and therefore misleading (PD 6.2.1 D(b)) [Statute text; see Appendix A.3], which this book applies to websites [Conservative line (not statute text)]. 3. Write figures such as time limits only once the rule has been checked. The provision on how many years of marriage must pass before a divorce can be filed (Women's Charter s 94) has not yet had its original wording checked against SSO [Original text not obtained]; until it is checked, write only the section number and a link to the court's page, with no number of years. 4. The "after the document review" branch block uses `If the review finds / Next step / Added time / Fee (incl. GST) or "confirmed in the letter of engagement"`; the fee cell follows chapter 1, 1.2, and states that the final fee is set out in the letter of engagement. 5. The family requirements page presents mediation and divorce by mutual agreement as the primary options, and does not write "fight it all the way" or "make the other side pay": family lawyers have a professional duty to advise clients to consider settlement; in the rule's own words, "advise the client to consider resolving those proceedings amicably" (PCR r 15A(2)(b)) [Statute text; see Appendix A.1], which this book applies to web copy [Conservative line (not statute text)]; see chapter 1, 1.7. > **Example** (family law) On the court's "Understand the requirements for getting a divorce" page, a table lists 6 statutory facts for divorce row by row (Fact / What it means / When you can apply), and ChatGPT's answer is essentially that table restated row by row. This page accounts for 8 of the 171 citations across the two family rounds, covering 7 of the 22 questions, and appears in both engines and both rounds. Every H2 on the page is a statement — not a single question among them — so what gets copied is the table, not the headings. See （→ 通用版 5.18 资格流程页（pt07）） for the general-edition approach. ## 5.11 ⑧ Second-opinion and change-of-lawyer page: deadlines first, then the conflict check **What you'll do in this section**: readers who want to change lawyers or get a second opinion need to know first how much time they have left. Lay out the page on the seven-block skeleton, and don't move a single block out of order; the subject is the reader's current situation — don't criticise the previous lawyer, and don't urge the reader to terminate their engagement. When you're done, you'll have a second-opinion page template you can send to a partner for sign-off — this entire skeleton is not yet measured, and the law-firm questions don't yet have a citation sample for this kind of question either; add the evidence through the chapter 7 retest once it's live. ```wireframe id=pt08-deadline Figure: rights-deadline remedy page, deadlines first, then pathways (not measured as a whole, so no block is marked cite) H1 + byline | H1 states the situation; the byline gives the practitioner's name + years in practice | req Urgent-deadline table | Deadline / What it applies to / Source | req,law Whether we can take it | Which types, at which stage, we can take on, and which we cannot | req Conflict check | No case details are taken before the check clears | req Documents to bring | Document / Why we need it | opt Scope of the second opinion | Covered / Not covered | req Fee table | Service / Fee / Includes / Excludes | req No interference with your existing representation | We do not advise ending your current engagement, and do not contact your current provider ourselves | req,law FAQ | H3 questions, 3–5 items | opt ``` ```steps Figure: how a law firm fills the second-opinion page's seven blocks, in fixed order 1 | Urgent deadline | Appeal window, limitation period, with the section number and check date 2 | Can we take it | Which type, which stage we take it on at; state what we don't take 3 | Conflict of interest | Check for conflicts first; no case details collected before it clears 4 | Documents to bring | Document / Why we need it 5 | Scope of the opinion | Covered / Not covered 6 | Fees | Fixed fee or hourly, final fee set out in the letter of engagement 7 | Existing engagement | Don't urge termination, don't contact the current lawyer ``` What the figure cannot show: why the deadline comes first — this is a rights-deadline question, and the skeleton the General Edition sets for this type is deadline first, path second; the reader needs to know how many days are left, from what date they run, and under which provision, before the later blocks mean anything. Why criticising the previous lawyer is banned: the original text of r 43(1)(c) bans "comparison or criticism in relation to the fees charged, or the quality of the services provided" about other lawyers [Statute text; see Appendix A.1] — "the previous lawyer botched it" falls squarely in this box; an opening such as "many clients only discover this once they come to us…" mostly falls here too, and the rest of it talks about other clients' matters (see chapter 1, 1.4). For how to reword it, see chapter 4, 4.2's comparison figure. Law-firm-specific approach: 1. Every row of the deadline table quotes the statute or the court page's original text, with the date the value was taken. Not a single limitation period or appeal window in this round has been checked against SSO [Original text not obtained]; until checked, write only the section number and the link, with no number of days. 2. Don't urge termination, and don't reach out to the reader's current lawyer. The basis is the ban on touting: lawyers "must not tout for business" (r 39(1)) [Statute text; see Appendix A.1]; applying that to "urging a client to change lawyers" is this book's own reading [Conservative line (not statute text)]. We found no provision specifically governing urging a client to switch lawyers [Original text not obtained], and the earlier draft's statement that a client must not be improperly influenced to terminate is no longer cited as a basis. 3. The "can we take it" block states clearly which cases the firm handles and at which procedural stage it takes them on, and also states what it does not take on; write the qualifier the same way as 5.10, item 2. 4. No case details are collected before the conflict check clears: the page's form collects only the items the conflict check needs — the reader's name, the other party's name, and the stage the case is at. 5. The fees block follows chapter 1, 1.2: a fixed fee or hourly rate, stating what's included and what isn't, with the final fee set out in the letter of engagement. You can say the first consultation is free [Original text not obtained]: no prohibition found in the current rules (scope checked: PCR 2015 in full, the Law Society Council's 12 Practice Directions and 2 Guidance Notes; check date: 2026-09-29); if you write it, state the scope and duration, and don't turn it into a promotional hook [Conservative line (not statute text)]. Building the second-opinion page itself carries the same fixed sentence too (see chapter 4, 4.2). 6. The page does not tell individual-case stories such as "we turned the case around after taking it on"; if you do need to write about a specific matter, run it through the decision figure in 5.15 first. 7. A partner or director signs off before launch (sign-off sheet in Appendix B.4). The sign-off covers the professional content and wording; it never turns something banned as Statute text into something publishable (see chapter 1, 1.1). > **Example** (second opinion) Illustrative wording, not a measured original sentence. Own sentence: "At , a second-opinion review of your documents is a fixed fee of S$ (incl. GST) and covers ; is quoted separately in the letter of engagement, and we do not contact your current lawyer." Deadline sentence: "The deadline to is set by s (checked ); it runs from ." See （→ 通用版 5.19 补救与二次评估页（pt08）） for the general-edition approach. ## 5.12 ⑫ Definition page: a one-sentence definition plus the section number **What you'll do in this section**: write the one-sentence definition once under the H1 and once again, word for word identical, under the first H2, with the definition linking on to that section on SSO; write H3s as the buyer's original question, and under each question write the first sentence as a conditional in the form "If…, the court may…", with the court or the legislation as the subject, never the firm. When you're done, you'll have a definition-page template with three things locked down: the reviewer line, the link to the rule, and the conditional sentence. ```wireframe id=pt12 Figure: Definition page; AI copies the conditional sentence under each H3 question Reviewer line | named reviewer + date, above the summary | opt,law First-screen summary | 100–150 words, in this fixed order: what it is / when it's needed / how long recovery takes | req One-sentence definition, written twice | once under H1, then word for word again under the first H2 | req Every H3 written as the buyer's original question | What is / How painful / How long… | req First sentence under each H3 is a conditional | if , then | req,cite ``` What the figure cannot show: the three-part order in the blueprint's first-screen summary cell (what it is / when it's needed / how long recovery takes) was written for medical pages; law firms change it to "what it is / when it applies / who decides". For the reviewer line marked `law`, law firms write the named lawyer + year of admission + month and year. Law-firm-specific approach: 1. Place the reviewer line above the H1: the named lawyer + year of admission + month and year. Don't write a practising number — whether the LSRA register lookup's individual practising details have a number field that can be publicly cited has not been verified [Original text not obtained]; until it is verified, write the LSRA register lookup link plus the check date (see chapter 3, 3.2). 2. Link the definition sentence on to that section on SSO (a URL with the `ProvIds` section parameter), never to the whole Act. What ChatGPT wants when it cites a provision is one section: across the two family rounds (public dataset, 2026-09-23) ChatGPT cited SSO 12 times, and all 12 carried the section parameter; on the L3 question about minority shareholder oppression (2026-09-29), ChatGPT linked to that one section, Companies Act s 216, on both runs (single case). 3. Pages explaining the difference between two concepts (such as probate versus letters of administration) don't belong to this type — they belong to ㊹ in 5.8; only one page may take any given term. 4. The law-firm version of this type feeds AI Mode: across L3's 2 definition questions, ChatGPT cited government and public-body pages 17/18 in total over both runs, law-firm websites 0/10 on run 1 (0/8 on run 2); AI Mode cited law-firm websites 5/9, with 3 of those on the question asking for the difference between two concepts. In family R1, AI Mode cited law-firm legal-encyclopedia pages roughly 5 times (rough labelling). 5. Don't call yourself "the most authoritative"; by default, don't write "leading" — write it only when a third-party ranking's matching tier backs it up (chapter 1, 1.6); schema restates only the facts visible on the page (chapter 2, 2.4). > **Example** (family law) The court's guardianship page: "Guardianship gives a person the legal responsibility to care for a child below 21 years of age." This sentence appears once under the H1 and once again under the first H2, with the term itself as the subject, said in one sentence — and ChatGPT copied it verbatim (family R2 measured ChatGPT only, single case). However the page gets chunked, this complete sentence is what gets pulled out. See （→ 通用版 5.23 问题与规则类档 B（一）：监管义务、定义词条） for the general-edition approach. ## 5.13 ⑬ Step-by-step procedures, ⑭ preparation lists and ⑯ deadlines and key dates **What you'll do in this section**: write one page for each of the three types. The step-by-step procedure page doesn't recopy the court's generic process — it writes "how this step runs at the firm, and how much this step costs"; the preparation and bring-list page is currently an empty slot, so do it first; on the deadlines and key dates page, every deadline carries a section number and effective date, and numbers of days are never written for a rule that hasn't been checked. When you're done, you'll have three ready-to-fill skeletons. The leg for all three types is the same as in 5.9. In L3 (2026-09-29), across 7 process questions, ChatGPT cited government and public-body pages 85/92 over both runs, law-firm websites 0/43 on run 1 (0/49 on run 2); across 3 checklist questions, government and public-body pages 27/32, law-firm websites 0/13 (1/19). AI Mode cited law-firm websites in these two types at process 13/35, checklist 4/12. In family R1 (2026-09-23), law-firm pages explaining how the divorce process works were cited by AI Mode 5 times (1 of them a Simplified Chinese page) and by ChatGPT 0 times. ### Step-by-step procedure page (pt13) ```wireframe id=pt13 Figure: Step-by-step procedure page; what AI copies are cells from the step table and the form table H1 | starts with a verb + track qualifier | req Deliverable sentence | one sentence stating what this page provides | req Step table | Step / Result, with the time limit fixed in the cell | req,cite Form table | document name / form number and source | req,cite Official fee table | Item or service / Fees | req H3s split by channel | one block each for online / offline | opt ``` Law-firm-specific approach: 1. The government page gives the generic track; the law-firm version writes this step at this firm. Illustrative wording (every figure is a placeholder): "At , for , step is , the result is , and it usually takes working days; the firm's fee for this step is S$ (incl. GST), and the court fee of S$ is charged separately (, taken on )." 2. Copy the official fee table only from the court's or the relevant authority's current table, writing the table's name and the date retrieved; if the original table can't be obtained, put in only a link (chapter 1, 1.3). The firm's own fees follow chapter 1, 1.2, and are never compared with other firms (r 43(1)(c)) [Statute text; see Appendix A.1]. 3. Timeframes state only how long the procedure takes to run; never write "guaranteed judgment within N weeks" (r 44(2)(d)) [Statute text; see Appendix A.1]. 4. Give online and physical, simplified and normal procedures one H3 each; don't mix them together. 5. The family process page presents mediation and divorce by mutual agreement as the primary options (chapter 1, 1.7). 6. Build a Chinese version only where there's a Chinese-speaking client base, and accept it against the AI Mode leg only (5.3): across L3's 4 Chinese questions, ChatGPT cited Chinese-language pages 0/47 over both runs, AI Mode 5/22 (Chinese-language pages judged heuristically by title and URL). > **Example** (family law) The Ministry of Social and Family Development's FamilyAssist "Types of Divorce Proceedings" page writes the timeframe as a "step + duration" sentence (the simplified procedure takes about 1 month to get an interim judgment, then another 3 months' wait), and AI Mode pulled it apart almost word for word into the timeline in its answer (family R1, single case). Duration written into the original sentence, not buried in a lead-up paragraph, is what gets pulled apart like this. ### Preparation and bring-list page (pt14) ```wireframe id=pt14 Figure: Preparation and bring-list page; AI copies the timing sentence and "what we already provide" Timing sentence | at the top, when to start preparing | req,cite ID/document group | institutions' proper names written out in full | req Fasting or emergency-referral items | their own bullet, never folded into a paragraph | req,law Reverse checklist | already provided / no need to bring, a two-column table | req,cite Grouping rule | grouping by identity copies best, then by time, then a one-page checkbox sheet | req ``` What the figure cannot show: the blueprint's "Fasting or emergency-referral items" row belongs to medical pages; law firms have no equivalent, so delete it, and use the rest of the cells as they are. Law-firm-specific approach: 1. This is an empty slot, so do it first. On family R2's "Documents checklist for filing divorce in Singapore" question, all 5 of ChatGPT's citations were court pages, and not a single dedicated checklist page was cited; across L3's three checklist questions, ChatGPT cited only 1 law-firm website in total over both runs (on run 2), and even that was a legal-encyclopedia article about shareholders' agreements (page type heuristic). 2. Order the groupings by how copyable they are: grouping by identity (applicant / respondent, executor / beneficiary) beats grouping by timing (before filing / before the hearing), and grouping by timing beats a one-page tick-box sheet. 3. Write the reverse checklist as two columns — "documents the firm drafts for you" / "originals you bring" — the first column is the half nobody else can copy. 4. Write document and form names word for word from the court's original page, and note the check date; the moment a rule changes, update the checklist the same day and link it to the old-vs-new page in 5.16. 5. Don't write result-promising words such as "easily gather everything" or "get it right the first time." ### Deadlines and key dates page (pt16) ```wireframe id=pt16 Figure: Schedule and deadline page; AI copies the first-screen date range and the date table H1 | the process name, no year | req First-screen sentence | who can apply + this year's opening date | req,cite Four fixed H2 sections | Criteria→Procedure→Schedule→Enquiries | req Two-column date table | Period / Actions, three rows for application/shortlisting/results | req,cite Eligibility judgement | this type does not write conditional reasoning | no ``` Law-firm-specific approach: 1. Write every deadline as one row: the deadline + the date it runs from + the full name of the legislation and the section number + the check date, linking to that section on SSO. Check limitation periods and appeal windows one by one against SSO [Original text not obtained]; until they are checked, don't write a number of days. 2. Write a new rule's effective date into the date table, not into the H1; cross-link it with the old-vs-new page in 5.16. 3. The blueprint's "Eligibility judgement" cell is marked `no`, and law firms need to hold to it even more strictly: the deadline page does not write "your case still has time" — whether there's still time is for a lawyer to decide after reviewing the documents. 4. What AI wants for deadline questions is the provision: on L3's debt-recovery question (L3-DEB-01), ChatGPT run 1 linked straight to that section of the Limitation Act (SSO, anchored to the section, single case). Only a page that gives the section number and the link can connect to an answer like this. See （→ 通用版 5.24 问题与规则类档 B（二）：办事步骤、准备清单） for the general-edition approach to the step-by-step procedure page and the preparation and bring-list page; see （→ 通用版 5.25 问题与规则类档 B（三）：日程、集合 FAQ、政策 hub、变更公告、误解纠正） for the deadlines and key dates page. ## 5.14 ㉒ Collected FAQ page **What you'll do in this section**: write the real questions for one type of case onto a single page, one question per block, each answer 40–80 words with the first sentence giving the conclusion; an FAQ is not an exempt zone — write questions such as "how much does it cost", "is there a charge for the first consultation?" and "can I get a no win, no fee arrangement?" the way chapter 1 says to. When you're done, you'll have an FAQ that can supply several citations at once, and wherever AI chunks it, it lands on a conclusion. ```wireframe id=pt22 Figure: Collected FAQ page; several Q&A blocks on the same page get copied separately Whole page alternates Q and A | no body paragraphs, no lead-in | req Question written in the buyer's own words | each one independent | req Each answer 40–80 words | the first sentence is the conclusion | req,cite One-sentence answer with a threshold | copied even when placed further down | req,cite Footnote numbers | superscripts 1, 2, 3 on key claims | opt schema | FAQPage | opt ``` What the figure cannot show: most of the law-firm pages that get cited carry an FAQ. Of the 10 cited law-firm pages taken apart page by page in family R1, 7 had an FAQ block; on a page whose body-text H2 opens by setting up how complicated the matter is, AI will go looking in the FAQ for that one conclusion sentence (see the example, single case). Law-firm-specific approach: 1. Every answer goes through chapter 1's word list (Appendix B.3); write the questions and answers where they're visible on the page, and don't stack FAQPage schema just to chase rich results (（→ 通用版 2.7 闸三闸四：收录通路与 JSON-LD 一次封版）). 2. Answer "how much does it cost" in the format from chapter 1, 1.2: billing method + fixed fee or range + what's included and what isn't + the final fee set out in the letter of engagement. Don't write "cheaper than other firms" (r 43(1)(c)) [Statute text; see Appendix A.1], and don't write an unnamed market range either [Conservative line (not statute text)] (see chapter 1, 1.3). 3. You can answer "is there a charge for the first consultation?" with "no charge" [Original text not obtained]: no prohibition found in the current rules (scope checked: PCR 2015 in full, the Law Society Council's 12 Practice Directions and 2 Guidance Notes; check date: 2026-09-29). If you answer "no charge", state the scope and duration (for example, "First 30 minutes free of charge; document review not included") — leaving out an important limitation is omitting a material fact (r 44(2)(b)) [Statute text; see Appendix A.1]; don't turn it into a promotional hook [Conservative line (not statute text)]. 4. Answer "can I get a no win, no fee arrangement?" with "conditionally, yes" only on pages for proceedings listed on the conditional-fee list (LPA s 107, s 115B, PCR r 18A, CFA Regulations 2022 reg 3) [Statute text; see Appendix A.1, A.2]. Family cases are not on the list: family pages do not write "no win no fee" — this question can only be answered "family cases cannot be charged this way" [Statute text; see Appendix A.2]; writing "conditionally, yes" would be publicising an arrangement that can't actually be signed [Conservative line (not statute text)]. 5. Questions like "how many cases have you won" don't go into the FAQ: never write a success rate or win count, without exception (r 43(1)(b)(ii)) [Statute text; see Appendix A.1]. 6. If a family FAQ wants to use a real case as an example, follow the decision figure in 5.15: it must first pass our own de-identification check, then be signed off case by case, in writing, by a partner or director; no answer may contain any detail that could identify a child involved in the proceedings (CYPA s 112) [Statute text; see Appendix A.4] — not even with a sign-off (see chapter 1, 1.7). > **Example** (family law) On a law firm's prenuptial-agreement page, the body-text H2's first sentence says "is a complicated matter" and was not copied; on the same page, an FAQ answer of about 40 words that gives the conclusion straight in the first sentence (a prenuptial agreement is not automatically binding, but the court will consider it under certain conditions) was copied by AI Mode (family R1, single case). See （→ 通用版 5.25 问题与规则类档 B（三）：日程、集合 FAQ、政策 hub、变更公告、误解纠正） for the general-edition approach. ## 5.15 ㊱ Case summary page: the subject is the court, not the firm **What you'll do in this section**: the H1 gives the case name and citation, and right under the H1 comes one holding sentence, whose subject is the court; don't write the firm's track record or a win rate; writing "acted for" requires the client's written authorisation; family case law uses only anonymised judgments the court has already made public, with no added detail that could identify a party or a child. When you're done, you'll have a case-summary format, and a decision figure for whether to write "acted for." ```wireframe id=pt36 Figure: Case-law page, summary version; AI copies the ruling sentence under the H1; the full-text version separately has its sentence on whether the case is still good law copied H1 | case name + subject + year + court + case number | req Ruling sentence under H1 | a standalone sentence stating what the case decided | req,cite Decision date | one line | req Two H3s | Facts / Court's Decision | req Full-text Outcome block | lists the court's orders clause by clause | opt Full-text follow-up sentence | how many later judgments cite it, any negative treatment | opt,cite Full-text citation graph | Cited by / Authorities cited in two columns | opt Stable paragraph anchor | a #id per paragraph, the same mechanism as the legislation page | opt Full judgment text with no ruling sentence | just posts the full text with nothing stating the ruling | no ``` ```split Figure: a case summary writes what the court decided, not what the firm won Write || Don't write Case name + citation + court + judgment date || "Another win for the firm" One holding sentence under the H1, subject the court || A win rate, a track record, "never lost a case" What this holding means for this type of party || "Come to us and get the same result" Link back to the court's original judgment or case-summary page || Any case facts beyond the judgment's own text "Acted for": with the client's written authorisation || Any detail that could identify a party or a child ``` ```mermaid Figure: whether to write "acted for": family cases face two extra gates, and two situations can't be released even with a sign-off flowchart LR q{"Write 'acted for'?"} -->|No| ok0["Write only the court's holding"] q -->|Yes| c{"Client authorised in writing?"} c -->|No| no1["Don't write it"]:::warn c -->|Yes| f{"Is it a family case?"} f -->|No| s1["Publish after partner/director sign-off"] f -->|Yes| d{"Passed our de-identification check?"}:::hl d -->|Child identifiable, or publication restricted by order| no2["Don't write it — a sign-off can't release this"]:::warn d -->|Yes| s2["Partner/director signs each case, then publish"] ``` What the figure cannot show: why even a sign-off cannot release those two extra family-law gates. For family cases, whether to publish a case study, a republished review or a review reply is decided by the lawyer's own written sign-off, case by case (for how the two review cells are written, see chapter 1, 1.5 and chapter 6, 6.5) — but two provisions come straight from the legislation's own text, and no sign-off can release them: - Information that could identify a child or young person involved in the proceedings may not be published; the original text covers "particulars that are calculated to lead to the identification of any child or young person concerned in the proceedings" (CYPA s 112(1)(a)), and this still applies once the child turns 18 (s 112(1)(c)) [Statute text; see Appendix A.4]; - A Family Justice Court may make an order restricting publication (FJA s 10(4)(a)), and anyone who breaches it commits an offence (s 10(5)) [Statute text; see Appendix A.4]; where such an order exists, not a single word about that case gets published. So every family case summary, and every family case study or review, first goes through our own de-identification check (the family self-check sheet in Appendix B.4); any hit on any item means it does not go for sign-off. Once it passes, it goes to a partner or director for sign-off, case by case, in writing. The lawyer's signature does not cover our own responsibility as the publisher: CYPA s 112(5)(b) penalises "the person who publishes or distributes it", and FJA s 10(5) penalises "Any person who acts in contravention of any order under subsection (3) or (4)" — once content crosses the line and we are the ones who send it out, we are the person those words describe [Statute text; see Appendix A.4]. The rule that holds throughout the book holds here too: a written sign-off resolves only the stop-and-escalate situations; it never turns something banned as Statute text into something publishable. Law-firm-specific approach: 1. H1 = case name + subject + year + court + citation; the holding sentence is "In , the court held that ." The subject is the court, not the firm. 2. Don't write a win rate or a track record (r 43(1)(b)(ii)), and don't write "come to us and get the same result" (r 44(2)(d)) [Statute text; see Appendix A.1]. 3. Writing "acted for" is conditional on mentioning the case not breaching the duty of confidentiality owed to the client (r 43(1)(b)(i)) — that is, the client has authorised this disclosure (r 6(3)(a)) [Statute text; see Appendix A.1]; authorisation is always taken in writing, stating exactly how far the disclosure goes, and kept on file [Conservative line (not statute text)] (see chapter 1, 1.4); confirming that someone is a client of the firm is itself confidential information [Conservative line (not statute text)]. 4. Family case law uses only anonymised judgments the court has already made public (eLitigation and the court's own case-summary pages), linking back to the original judgment; the facts in the summary don't go beyond the judgment's own text, and no combination that could piece together an identity is added (things like age + school + parents' occupation). Family Justice Court matters are heard in private by default, in the rule's own words, "all matters and proceedings in a Family Justice Court must be heard in private." (FJA s 10(1)) [Statute text; see Appendix A.4]; the case-law commentary writes only the legal points and procedure, and never a hearing detail that could be matched to a specific party [Conservative line (not statute text)]. 5. Building a case summary page itself [Original text not obtained]: no prohibition found in the current rules (scope checked: PCR 2015 in full, the Law Society Council's 12 Practice Directions and 2 Guidance Notes, FJA s 10, CYPA s 112; check date: 2026-09-29). 6. Scheduling: build it as a trust asset, not a traffic page. Across the two family rounds (public dataset, 2026-09-23), 6 of ChatGPT's 119 citations were case-law pages (3 court case summaries, 1 court annual-report notable case, 1 eLitigation, 1 laws.sg), and AI Mode (measured on R1 only, 52 citations) had none at all; in L3 (2026-09-29), ChatGPT cited judgment-type pages (heuristically labelled) 6/146 on run 1 (6/161 on run 2), AI Mode 0/122, and 5 of those 6 citations on run 1 were on the minority-shareholder-oppression question. In both rounds, the case-law pages cited were always court and judgment-database pages; no case summary written by a law firm itself was seen being cited (the page type is heuristic and was not checked page by page). > **Example** (family law) On the court's family case-summary page, the holding sentence directly under the H1 — stating what rule this case established — was copied by ChatGPT (family R2 measured ChatGPT only, single case). The holding sentence does the summarising work for the AI; that's exactly the one sentence a law firm's own summary page needs to write, with the court as the subject just the same. See （→ 通用版 5.28 源头类档 B（一）：法条、监管指引、官方答复、器械文件、判例） for the general-edition approach. ## 5.16 New rules and policy types: ⑩ ㉓ ㉖ ㉞ ㊵ ㊺ **What you'll do in this section**: question types such as "when does the new rule take effect", "what did the minister say" and "is this legal" each get routed to one page type; all six types do only downstream writing — a word-for-word quote, a link back to the original page, and the check date, plus one sentence on what it means for this kind of case; never write "so we understand the new rules better than other firms." When you're done, you'll have six blueprints, and one routing figure for which question type goes to which page type. ```mermaid Figure: six rules-type questions each route to one page type; all six are written the same way: word-for-word quote, link back, check date flowchart LR q1["When does the new rule start"] --> p34["㉞ Old-vs-new"] q2["What did the minister say"] --> p23["㉓ Reply restatement"] q3["Is this legal"] --> p40["㊵ Misconception correction"] q4["How does the new rule affect me"] --> p45["㊺ New-rule explainer"] q5["A cluster of related rules"] --> p26["㉖ Topic hub"] q6["Who has what statutory duty"] --> p10["⑩ Obligation summary"] p34 -->|All written as| d["Word-for-word quote + link back + check date"]:::hl p23 --> d p40 --> d p45 --> d p26 --> d p10 --> d ``` What the figure cannot show: why all six types do only downstream writing. The source for these question types is the statute, the courts and the ministries: in L3 (2026-09-29), across 5 rules questions, ChatGPT cited government and public-body pages 39/39 over both runs, law-firm websites 0/20 on run 1 (0/19 on run 2); AI Mode cited law-firm websites 4/16 in the same type. A law firm's own version can't substitute for the original: under this question type, everything ChatGPT cites is the original. New-rule explainers are a law firm's natural strength, but the strength lies in "explaining the original text to this kind of client", not in being the source itself. Statements like "so we understand the new rules better than other firms" compare the quality of other lawyers' services (r 43(1)(c)) [Statute text; see Appendix A.1], and none of the six types may write them. ### Old-vs-new comparisons and new-rule explainers (㉞ ㊺) ```wireframe id=pt34 Figure: Change notice page; AI copies "from date X, the new practice replaces the old" Effective date fixed in the title | commercial version starts with "Important:" + effective date | req First-screen scope statement | which part changed this time | req Timetable | Date / What Happens, 3–8 rows | req,cite Old-vs-new sentence | the old practice and the new practice compressed into one sentence | req,cite Transition-period rules | its own H2, stating the number of days clearly | req ``` The old-vs-new page covers only your own changes or changes in your own jurisdiction; a page explaining what an external new rule means for a type of party belongs to the new-rules explainer page (㊺), whose blueprint is entirely unmeasured: ```wireframe id=pt45 Figure: block order for the news and policy explainer page (the whole diagram is not measured, spec taken from an external teardown, no block marked cite) title | An assertion-style title, with an event clause and a claim clause | req intro | No heading, 3–5 sentences, 80–120 words: date + event → the bet we're making → headline number → a lesson sentence that leads with a negative | req H2 Key findings | 4–5 items, one sentence each, 20–40 words, third-party findings first, the last item states our own limits | req H2 What happened | 120–200 words, past tense, zero adjectives | req H2 Why the mechanism matters | 150–220 words, one study per paragraph, each with its source | req H2 Our own evidence | 180–260 words, evidence table | req H2 What the reader should do | 5–6 bullets, noun-phrase labels, no product names, no using the topic for soliciting | req,law H2 Our own positioning | 80–130 words | opt H2 Method and limitations | 60–110 words, one paragraph | req FAQ | Exactly 3 items, questions phrased as objections, every answer opens with a negative sentence | req ``` Law-firm-specific approach: 1. Write the old-vs-new sentence in one go: "From , replaces (, , checked )." 2. The new-rules explainer page (pt45) is entirely unmeasured. The "What the reader should do" block marked `law` doesn't tout on the back of a new rule — don't write "the new rule is complicated, come to us fast" — the ban on touting, r 39(1) [Statute text; see Appendix A.1], applies to this kind of copy [Conservative line (not statute text)]; the "Our own positioning" block writes only whether the firm handles this kind of affected case, never a comparison with other firms. 3. A law firm's own new-rules explainer page does have a citation sample, but a thin one: in family R1, a law-firm page on the new divorce-by-mutual-agreement law was cited by AI Mode 1 time (single case). > **Example** (family law) On the court's "FJR 2024 Digest" page, the old-vs-new sentence — from 2024-10-15, which old documents the Originating Application replaced — was copied by ChatGPT (family R2 measured ChatGPT only, single case). "From what date, what replaced what" compressed into one sentence is what lets AI take the whole sentence without reasoning across sentences. ### Official reply restatements (㉓) ```wireframe id=pt23 Figure: Official replies and speech records page; each numbered passage carries its own subject title | title, name + occasion + year | req First-screen line | date + category | req Body, no H2s | major sections + paragraphs with Arabic numbers + sub-items | req Numbered paragraph stands alone | carries its own complete subject, so it can be cut out on its own | req,cite Self-contained sentence with the number | numerator, denominator, percentage and time window in the same sentence | req,cite Transcript-site variant | one block per question and answer, block header shows the number of exchanges | opt ``` Law-firm-specific approach: 1. Follow the General Edition's sentence pattern: "On , replied at : '' (). The effect on is ." 2. Don't write a minister's or a judge's words as an endorsement of the firm, and don't imply that an official body is backing the firm. 3. Move a self-contained numbers sentence over exactly as the original has it: keep the numerator, denominator, percentage and time window in the same sentence, without converting or rounding. > **Example** (family law) A sentence from a sub-item in the middle of the minister's reply in the Ministry of Law's 2024 Committee of Supply debate — of the 6,220 divorces in the past year, about 4,150, or 66%, went through the simplified procedure — was copied whole by ChatGPT (family R2 measured ChatGPT only, single case). The numerator, denominator, percentage and time window are packed into the same sentence, so AI doesn't need to reason across sentences. ### Misconception corrections (㊵) ```wireframe id=pt40 Figure: Misconception page; each entry carries its own context and does not follow the first-30% rule H1 opposing-pair phrase | one line | req Single H2 | the only H2 on the whole page | req N entries | collapsible, a fixed three-part structure | req Popular claim, verbatim | the buyer's own first-person words | req One-word verdict | "Incorrect!" on its own line, the key to copyability | req Fact sentence + footnote | with subject + amount + effective date | req,cite ``` Law-firm-specific approach: 1. "The popular saying, word for word" is written in the buyer's own first-person voice; the fact sentence carries the rule number and effective date; the one-word verdict stands on its own line. 2. One typical misconception in legal services is "you can hire a lawyer on a no win, no fee basis." Write the fact sentence only from the conditional-fee provisions (LPA s 107, s 115B, PCR r 18A, the list of proceedings in CFA Regulations 2022 reg 3) [Statute text; see Appendix A.1, A.2], and state that a contingency fee — a share of the amount awarded — is still banned (GN 5.6.1) [Statute text; see Appendix A.3]; when a family page does this item, the fact sentence writes only "family cases are not on the list and cannot be charged this way", never "conditionally, yes" (5.14, item 4). Illustrative wording: "'You can hire a lawyer on a no win, no fee basis' — not necessarily. From 2022-05-04, a conditional fee agreement only applies to the proceedings listed in CFA Regulations 2022 reg 3 (, checked ); family cases are not on the list." 3. Don't write the "misconception" as a veiled dig at other firms ("some law firms will tell you…"). > **Example** (choosing a lawyer and legal fees) L3 asked 'Is "no win no fee" allowed for lawyers in Singapore?' (L3-GEN-04, single case), and ChatGPT cited the Ministry of Law's 2022-04-29 conditional-fee press release and the CFA Regulations 2022 original text on both runs. Run 1's answer opened with the sentence "Short answer: sometimes, but not generally." — a one-word verdict up front, the fact sentence after: exactly the shape of a misconception page. ### Obligation summaries and topic hubs (⑩ ㉖) ```wireframe id=pt10 Figure: Regulatory obligations and penalties page; AI copies the obligation sentence right under H1 H1 | a noun phrase naming the obligation, or a judgement sentence, no year | req Date line | "Last updated" in the first-screen body text, not the footer | req First-screen obligation sentence | 35–90 words right under H1: from date X / who / what must be done | req,cite Numbered requirements table | Number / Item description, item by item | opt,cite Penalty rows, side by side | subject: jail term + maximum fine, one row per subject | req H2s split by reader identity | split by who the reader is, not by rule number | opt ``` The obligation summary page is one obligation per page; a page that gathers a string of provisions under the same topic is a Policy hub page (㉖): ```wireframe id=pt26 Figure: Policy hub page; AI copies rows from the phased timetable and definition rows from the glossary table First-screen question-style anchors | a string of in-page anchors, not a summary | req H2s map one-to-one to the anchors | section order follows the anchors | req Phased timetable | Implementation Date / Who it applies to | req,cite Subsidy or transaction table | 3–5 rows each | opt Glossary table | one term + one definition sentence per row | req,cite Update date + schema | Last updated + FAQPage | req ``` Law-firm-specific approach: 1. ⑩ does only a word-for-word quote + link back + check date: "Under section : '' (, )." The General Edition says the lightly regulated side may self-build a page judging "whether this rule applies to you"; law firms skip this step — judging whether a rule applies to a specific reader is legal advice for that individual's own case, and belongs in the consultation [Conservative line (not statute text)]. 2. ㉖ is one hub page per topic: open with question-style anchors, and in the glossary table, one term + one definition sentence + a section number per row, without splitting it into ten separate blog posts or running a side-by-side comparison with other firms. Under complete-guide questions, everything ChatGPT cites is official: on family R2's "Complete guide to child custody" question, all 12 citations were court pages, court FAQs, SSO provisions and ministry pages (family R2 measured ChatGPT only, single case). Across both family rounds, a law firm's hub had no citation sample at all (L3 did not measure complete-guide questions); build it after the fees page and the process page. The general-edition approach for each type: for ⑩, see （→ 通用版 5.23 问题与规则类档 B（一）：监管义务、定义词条）; for ㉖ ㉞ ㊵, see （→ 通用版 5.25 问题与规则类档 B（三）：日程、集合 FAQ、政策 hub、变更公告、误解纠正）; for ㉓, see （→ 通用版 5.28 源头类档 B（一）：法条、监管指引、官方答复、器械文件、判例）; for ㊺, see （→ 通用版 5.30 档 C 四型：未验证页型）. ## 5.17 Muslim marriages: a separate set of pages for Syariah Court cases **What you'll do in this section**: firms that handle Muslim divorces build a separate set of process and fees pages for Syariah Court cases, not the Family Justice Courts; write the procedure and fees from the Syariah Court's own original pages, and where something hasn't been checked, put in only a link. When you're done, you'll have two sets of pages that never mix together, so the reader knows from the moment they land which set to read. ```mermaid Figure: a divorce question first splits by which court it goes to; the two sets of pages stand apart, cross-linked only in their opening paragraph flowchart LR q{"Was the marriage solemnised under Muslim law?"} -->|Yes| s["Syariah Court set: process page + fees page"]:::hl q -->|No| f["Family Justice Courts set: process + fees page"] s -->|Cross-linked in the opening paragraph| f ``` What the figure cannot show: this figure splits pages, not jurisdiction. Which marriages and which proceedings belong to the Syariah Court is set by AMLA (the Administration of Muslim Law Act), and this round's rule text has not been checked [Original text not obtained], so the page doesn't state our own judgement — the opening paragraph links to the Syariah Court's own original page on the matter instead. Why a separate set is needed: across the two family rounds (public dataset, 2026-09-23), 2 of ChatGPT's 119 citations were Syariah Court pages (one fees page, one hearing-procedure page); 3 of the 22 ChatGPT answers proactively flagged, right at the start (only the first 600 characters of each answer were stored), that Muslim marriages go through the Syariah Court, not the Family Justice Courts; and on one question about a father's custody rights, ChatGPT even linked straight to a specific AMLA provision (SSO, single case). Law-firm-specific approach: 1. Each set of pages has its own process page, fees page and FAQ. The opening paragraph of the Family Justice Courts set's process page states, "This page covers the Family Justice Courts' procedure; for marriages solemnised under Muslim law, see "; the two sets cross-link, and their body text is never mixed together. 2. Write the Syariah Court's procedural steps and fees from its original page only after checking it, giving the page name and the date retrieved; neither the AMLA provisions nor the Syariah Court's procedural text has been checked this round [Original text not obtained], so until checked, put in only a link — no number of days, no amount. 3. The fees page follows chapter 1, 1.2: write the firm's own fees and the fees payable to the Syariah Court in separate columns, the same way as the court-fees column in chapter 1, 1.3. 4. Follow the rule that children may not be identified: CYPA s 112 covers "any proceedings in any court" [Statute text; see Appendix A.4], which this book applies to Syariah Court proceedings too [Conservative line (not statute text)]. FJA s 10 covers the Family Justice Courts; whether the Syariah Court's proceedings have their own rule on hearing matters in private or restricting publication has not been checked in the original text [Original text not obtained] — until checked, don't write hearing details, the same as for the Family Justice Courts [Conservative line (not statute text)].