Formal Actions Taken in Representation and Union Deauthorization Cases, Fiscal Year 2002

p. 93. Six data columns under the spanner "Formal actions taken by type of case": "Cases in which formal actions taken^2", "Total formal actions taken^3", RC, RM, RD, UD. A heavier vertical rule separates RD from UD; it is a rule, not an extra column. Crop truncation: footnote markers appear on the caption (Fiscal Year 2002^1) and on the two first data-column headings (taken^2, taken^3), but no footnote text is printed within this crop, so `footnotes` is empty. The body also appears to be cut off: the last printed row is "Withdrawn before request ruled upon" under the supplemental-decisions section, with no "Board action on request ruled upon" / "Board decision after review" rows that the parallel section above has, so the table very likely continues on the following page. Doubtful cell placement: the last three stub lines ("Review of Regional Directors' supplemental decisions:" wrapping over two lines, then "Request for review received") sit inside a single ruled box, and the values 26 / 26 / 22 / 0 / 4 / 1 are printed vertically centred in that box rather than on the baseline of either label. I assigned them to "Request for review received" and left the "Review of Regional Directors' supplemental decisions:" line as a value-less section header, by analogy with the identically structured block higher in the table ("Review of Regional Directors' decisions:" with no values, followed by "Requests for review received" 332 / 295 / 236 / 14 / 45 / 3). The alternative reading (values on the section line) cannot be fully ruled out from the rules alone. Printed arithmetic does not reconcile in many rows; all values are transcribed exactly as printed. Examples where RC+RM+RD+UD does not equal the "Total formal actions taken" column: Hearings completed, total (681+24+82+6=793 vs 787); Initial hearing (619 vs 616); Hearing on objections and/or challenges (174 vs 171); Decisions issued, total (637 vs 615); By Regional Director (599 vs 578); Elections directed (502 vs 482); Decisions on Objections and/or Challenges, total (283 vs 275). Some rows do reconcile (e.g. Granted 45+2+4+0=51; Withdrawn before request ruled upon 25+0+4+0=29; In directed elections 86+0+9+0=95). Vertical additivity is also inconsistent: under "Decisions on Objections and/or Challenges", "No Exceptions" (234) + "Exceptions" (139) = 373 against "In stipulated elections" 268. These look like defects of the printed source, not misreadings; the digits were confirmed on two independent passes of the image. Label handling: "Transferred by Regional Directors for initial decision" is printed flush to the column edge ending in a single dot, which I read as a leader dot and dropped. "In directed elections (after transfer by Regional Director)" is printed with extra spacing ("In directed elections ( after transfer by Regional"); whitespace normalised and the two printed lines joined. The source mixes straight and curly apostrophes in "Regional Directors'"; normalised to a straight apostrophe throughout. "Withdrawn after request granted, before Board review" is one row wrapped over two printed lines.

p. 94. Crop is a continuation page (caption ends \"—Continued\"); the body begins mid-table with no section header above the first row. 7 columns: stub plus 6 value columns, with a double rule between RD and UD and between the stub and the first value column.\n\nRow 7: the printed cell spans two lines, \"Regional Directors' decisions:\" on the first line and \"Affirmed\" (with the leader dots) on the second, with no horizontal rule between them; the values 1, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0 sit inside that single two-line cell, printed level with the first line. I have joined the two lines into one row label. If the source is read instead as a section line \"Regional Directors' decisions:\" followed by a separate \"Affirmed\" row, the values belong to \"Affirmed\".\n\nContrast with row 5 (\"Withdrawn after request granted, before Board review\"), also a two-line label, where the values are printed level with the second line.\n\nPrinted arithmetic does not close in two rows, transcribed as printed: \"Board action on request ruled upon, total\" has total 8 but RC+RM+RD+UD = 7+0+1+1 = 9; \"Denied\" has total 4 but 4+0+0+1 = 5. The column sums are internally consistent (Granted+Denied+Remanded equals the total row in every column), so the discrepancy is row-wise only.\n\nFootnote 1 is clipped by the bottom edge of the crop: the glyph bottoms are cut and any terminal period is not visible, though the wording is legible. Footnote markers 2 and 3 appear in the column headings but their footnote texts fall below the crop and are not transcribed.