[JUDICIAL REVIEW] Request to re-review the Judicial Review "On the limitations of the Provost's Discretionary Edit Powers"

Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Column 4
Law in Question On the limitations of the Provost’s Discretionary Edit Powers
Legal Questions 1. The Conclave found that there exists no legislation that defined formatting-related errors. However, Section 11 of the Concordat says that: “Should a spelling, grammar, naming, or formatting (in relation to the rest of the legislation’s format) error exist in the Concordat or statutory law”. Does the Conclave still uphold their ruling that there is nothing defining what constitutes an Error despite this statement occurring in the Concordat?
2. The Conclave also found that the Provost has no limitations in exercising their right to Discretionary Edits as long as the legal effects of the document remain unchanged. To this, I have two questions: a. Assuming the answer to the first question is no, are there truly no limitations that the Provosts have in regard to their exercising of discretionary edit powers? b. Does formatting truly have no legal effect on legislation, considering the fact that the Magisters whom proposed these laws formatted their proposals that way on purpose?