Every submission is read by a person before it publishes. These are the grounds for turning one down, published so you can hold the index to them.
Any spec where an agent sends, files, publishes, or contacts a client on its own. Drafting is a tool. Acting on your behalf is unsupervised nonlawyer assistance, and no directory entry gets to hand you that.
Anything that generates, edits, or suggests review text, or that offers something of value for a review. Asking a satisfied client at the right moment is fine. Writing their words for them is not.
Outreach specs must check for existing representation, prior declines, and do-not-contact status before drafting anything. A spec that skips the check for speed gets rejected.
No spec may determine privilege, responsiveness, causation, valuation, or whether a claim is time-barred. Specs locate, assemble, cite, and flag. An attorney decides.
If a spec touches privileged material, protected health information, trust funds, or bar advertising rules, it says so on its face. Specs that quietly route confidential material to a third party get rejected.
Anything that fills a gap with a plausible-sounding fact rather than reporting the gap. Unsourceable figures go to an open-items list, never into a total, a chronology, or a demand.
Every spec has to describe a supervised first run against something you already know the answer to. A spec you cannot check before trusting is not a spec, it is a hope.
Specs naming a single vendor as the only way to run them, or written to funnel firms into a product. Naming a system as an example is fine. Requiring one is an ad.
These rules apply to the seeded entries too. If you find one that breaks them, that is a defect, not an exception — say so and it gets fixed or pulled.