dpdp.storeevidence workbenchRESOURCE LIBRARY

Home / Tools / Rule 3 Notice Linter

01 / In your browser / VERSION 0.3.0

Rule 3 Notice Linter

Find structural evidence gaps before a notice reaches human legal review.

Launch locallyRead the working guide
LOCAL INSTRUMENT / SYNTHETIC EXAMPLE INCLUDED

Method

Checks ten explainable cues across presentation, language, itemised data, purpose, withdrawal, rights, grievance, Board access, versioning and collection-surface context.

Use it safely

Begin with the synthetic example in the toolbench, then minimise any real-world input. Inspect each finding, its source/status note and the facts behind it before exporting a result.

What it cannot determine

It cannot decide whether a notice is legally sufficient, factually accurate, understandable to users, prominent or appropriate to the live collection journey.

Processing boundary. This preview processes current input in browser memory. No input is submitted or stored by dpdp.store. Results are evidence-building aids, not legal approval, certification or an official schema.

7 minute working guide / SYNTHETIC WALKTHROUGH

From input to a reviewable handoff.

GUIDE 0.5
Reviewed
2026-08-26
Legal status
editorial analysis
Changelog
0.6.0 — added bounded collection context and source-linked ten-check review guidance.

What this produces: A versioned structural-review record and a list of decisions for editorial or legal review.

FICTIONAL PRACTICE SCENARIO

A fictional service is preparing a sign-up notice. Its draft names the service and purpose, but it does not itemise data, explain withdrawal or identify the Board route.

Before you begin

  • Name the one collection surface being reviewed, plus the personal-data items and purpose expected from the real journey.
  • Replace real names, email addresses and internal secrets with synthetic labels before pasting.
  • Record the draft version and review date outside the tool so the exported finding can be tied to a controlled document.

Walk the evidence sequence

  1. Load a bounded draft

    Open the synthetic example first, inspect its surface, data and purpose context, then replace it with the minimised notice text. If importing HTML, the tool reads it as inert text and does not render or execute it.

    Evidence to inspect
    The input panel should show the exact context and text being checked; every change makes the previous report stale.
    Human review
    Confirm that the pasted text is the complete notice for this surface, not an unrelated privacy policy excerpt.

  2. Run the structural lint

    Generate the local result and read every check as either Cue present or Review. Follow each source link to the app-local source record before interpreting a legal cue.

    Evidence to inspect
    The result records the method version, source/status, metrics, context coverage and observed cues without sending the draft anywhere or copying it into the exported report.
    Human review
    A keyword match does not prove the wording is clear, accurate, prominent or legally sufficient.

  3. Edit the source document

    Resolve each useful cue in the controlled notice document, then paste the revised version and rerun. Do not edit only to satisfy a keyword.

    Evidence to inspect
    Changing the input makes the previous result stale and disables its export until a fresh run is created.
    Human review
    Check the revised statement against the actual data collected, purpose, contact path and user journey.

  4. Export a deliberate review record

    When the result matches the draft under review, export the JSON and store it beside the notice version under your organisation’s own controls.

    Evidence to inspect
    The export is a versioned local finding record; it is not the notice itself and does not contain a compliance verdict.
    Human review
    A qualified reviewer still needs to assess legal meaning, accuracy, language, presentation and current commencement.

Handoff check

  • Can an operator trace the result to an exact notice version and collection surface?
  • Were factual claims checked against the real product and data flow?
  • Were source/status notes rechecked before relying on a legal cue?
STOP / REVIEW BOUNDARY

The linter finds visible textual structure. It cannot see surrounding screen design, dark patterns, whether the organisation follows the notice, or whether consent is valid.

Security and parsing

  • Inputs have byte, row or component limits appropriate to the parser.
  • Imported content is treated as text or data and is never executed.
  • Spreadsheet exports neutralise formula-leading cells.
  • Use the per-tool reset or “Clear current toolbench state” to remove current in-tab input and results. Downloaded files remain under your control.

Version record

0.3.0 · 26 August 2026: deterministic public static implementation, synthetic fixture and bounded local parser. Guide record 0.5 · 26 August 2026.