Anatomical Gift

When NO purpose checkboxes are elected (on a parts-scope gift with no named recipient - see flag_9), the normalizer renders the KRS 311.1929(5)-(6) statutory default: the gift 'may be used only for transplantation, therapy, or research and education for the advancement of donation and transplantation science' and passes per 311.1929(7). The rendered phrase uses the subsection (6) wording (which ends 'donation and transplantation science'); subsection (5) ends 'donation and transplantation' without 'science' - same scope, slightly different tail. RECORD CORRECTION (2026-06-09): an earlier version of the intake config gift_purposes help text said an empty election 'defaults to all four under KRS 311.1917' - that error class (the default is the NARROWER 311.1929(5)-(6) set, and it comes from 311.1929, not 311.1917) was FIXED in the intake config 2026-05-28 (commit b0f99bb86); the live copy is correct today. The checker forbidden-phrase guard is retained as regression protection. Confirm the (6) phrasing.

CONTRADICTION CLASS (strengthened per critic 2026-06-09): the KRS 311.1929(5)-(6) defaults are by their terms conditioned on the document NOT naming a person described in 311.1929(1) - so a record that both (a) elects zero purposes and (b) names a recipient CANNOT truthfully assert the (5)-(6) default. The earlier draft did exactly that: it rendered the default-applies paragraph and a to-the-extent-this-document-names-a-recipient pass-through hedge in the same breath, a self-contradiction. The composition now renders an ATTORNEY MUST RESOLVE note on the zero-purposes + named-recipient branch instead of the default assertion (see flag_9), and the default text - which now renders only when no recipient is named - states on its face that this document does not name a 311.1929(1) person. Named individual recipients still carry the 311.1929(2) pass-through default sentence in the RECIPIENT section. Resolve the note branch with the donor at review.

KRS 311.1917(2) requires NO witnesses when the donor signs the record personally. The intake config promises witnesses are 'still customary and we include them by default,' so the direct-signing branch renders customary witness lines labeled 'customary - not required by KRS 311.1917(2) when the donor signs personally.' Confirm rendering customary lines (vs omitting them) and the label wording.

Statutory 'tissue' EXCLUDES eyes (KRS 311.1911(30): a portion of the human body other than an organ or an eye); corneas are part of the eye (311.1929(3)(a) routes eyes to eye banks, separately from tissue banks). The intake option copy promises 'Tissues only (cornea, skin, bone, etc.)'. To honor the promised cornea coverage the tissues_only composition includes eyes and corneas EXPRESSLY ('the tissues of my body, together with my eyes (including corneas)') and excludes solid organs. Confirm this scope (or direct the intake copy to drop 'cornea').

Whole-body donation renders as a gift of ALL of the body (the all branch of 311.1911(3)); the document states that under KRS 311.1911(18) the term part does not include the whole body, and the checker forbids any whole-body-as-part phrasing. RECORD CORRECTION (2026-06-09): an earlier version of the intake config whole_body_donation help text claimed 'KRS 311.1911(20) recognizes part to include the whole body or a sub-part' - WRONG subsection ((20) is the physician definition) AND wrong content ((18) expressly EXCLUDES the whole body from part); that copy was FIXED 2026-05-28 (commit b0f99bb86) to frame whole-body donation as the all branch under KRS 311.1911(3), and the live copy is correct today. The checker forbidden-phrase guard is retained as regression protection so the error class can never reach a rendered document. An informational note tells whole-body donors that programs typically require institutional pre-registration and suggests naming the program in the RECIPIENT section. Confirm the note wording.

The preclusive-effect section states in plain language that the gift binds the family ('After my death my family may not revoke or override it', tracking 311.1923(1)) but carries a parenthetical caveat: if the donor is an unemancipated minor, KRS 311.1923(7) preserves the ability of a reasonably available parent to revoke or amend after death. The caveat matters because a 16-17 year old unemancipated, driver-license-eligible minor CAN self-designate under 311.1915(1)(b). Confirm keeping the caveat (vs simplifying for the overwhelmingly-adult customer base).

The title block and prepared-by line use the STATUTORY short title 'Kentucky Revised Uniform Anatomical Gift Act' (KRS 311.1959: 'may be cited as the Revised Uniform Anatomical Gift Act'). The intake config and engagement letter say 'Kentucky Uniform Anatomical Gift Act' (no 'Revised'). Confirm the document keeps the statutory short title and whether the intake/engagement copy should align.

When the donor signs by direction and intake did NOT confirm witness 1 as disinterested (witness_1_disinterested unchecked), the witness affidavit still renders with the disinterested-witness slot and definition, plus an attorney-review note that disinterest was not confirmed at intake and must be confirmed before delivery (KRS 311.1917(2)(a) requires at least one disinterested witness; 311.1911(5) defines the exclusions, including any person to which the gift could pass under 311.1929). Confirm this render-plus-flag posture (vs hard-blocking the matter at intake).

COMPOSITION DESIGN (critic fix 2026-06-09). The zero-purposes default and the no-recipient default passing are SCOPE- and RECIPIENT-AWARE: (a) KRS 311.1929(5) is by its terms limited to an anatomical gift 'of one (1) or more specific parts', 311.1911(18) excludes the whole body from part, and the 311.1929(7) passing branches address only an eye, tissue, or an organ - so a WHOLE-BODY gift with zero purposes renders an ATTORNEY MUST RESOLVE note instead of asserting the (5)-(6) default, and a whole-body gift with NO named recipient renders an ATTORNEY MUST RESOLVE note citing the 311.1929(9) custody rule instead of the eye-bank/tissue-bank/OPO routing line; (b) the (5)-(6) defaults are conditioned on NOT naming a 311.1929(1) person, so zero purposes + a NAMED recipient renders an ATTORNEY MUST RESOLVE note (the flag_2 contradiction class); (c) on the parts branches the rule restatement carries the restored statutory qualifier 'of one (1) or more specific parts' - the broad any_organ_or_part election sits between (5) ('specific parts') and (6) (general-intent documents), and both converge on the same purpose limit, which is why the restatement cites both. Precedence: a whole-body + named-recipient + zero-purposes record renders the whole-body note (the attorney resolves purposes either way). Confirm this composition design.

When a SUBSET of purposes is elected the document renders 'I do not authorize the purposes I have not listed.' That sentence is a deliberate donor-intent protection AND it operates as an express, contrary indication under KRS 311.1923(6): absent such an indication, an anatomical gift of a part for one or more 311.1915 purposes is NOT a limitation on the making of a gift of the part for any of the other purposes by the donor or any other person under 311.1917 or 311.1927 - so the limiter converts the check-all-that-apply election into a binding exclusion of the unelected purposes. This is intentional (the donor checked specific boxes and the document should not leave the unelected purposes statutorily open), but it is a legal call: confirm keeping the limiter versus the statutory open-endedness of 1923(6). The preclusive-effect section now carries the statutory 'subject to KRS 311.1923(6)' qualifier (critic fix 2026-06-09) so the rule restatement no longer over-reads 1923(1).

The RECIPIENT section renders the donor free-text entry as the donor STATED designation WITHOUT asserting it satisfies KRS 311.1929(1) (critic fix 2026-06-09 - the earlier draft said 'as permitted by KRS 311.1929(1)', but intake does not validate the entry; the intake placeholder example 'A blood relative in need of a kidney transplant' is a recipient CLASS, not an individual designated as the recipient of the part under (1)(b), and would itself fail (1)). An attorney-review note states that recipient conformity with KRS 311.1929(1) will be confirmed before delivery, and the checker forbids the 'as permitted by KRS 311.1929(1)' assertion. OPEN ATTORNEY QUESTION for named-program whole-body flows: 2023 ch. 52 amended (1)(a) so a hospital / accredited medical school, dental school, college, or university / OPO / other appropriate person may be named 'for research or education for the advancement of donation and transplantation science' - whether a whole-body gift naming a university program should track that qualified purpose phrasing (vs the donor generic 'education' election) is for the reviewing attorney.