The title-examination model

Understand how the engine connects recorded instruments, carries mineral interests forward, and preserves gaps for examiner review.

This explanation helps you interpret a report. For the steps to run a case, use Your first examination.

Begin with recorded evidence

An oil and gas title examination asks who owns a particular interest in a particular tract and how that interest moved through the recorded chain. A name appearing in a deed does not automatically identify the present mineral owner.

The grantor conveys an interest. The grantee receives it. A Vol/Pg citation identifies a volume and page in county records. The county and book series are part of that identity: another county or series can use the same numbers.

For prepared local PDFs, 0354_0148.pdf represents Volume 354, Page 148. The engine follows these instrument references. Similar wording alone does not establish a predecessor link.

Folder mode and seed mode

A seed is a starting instrument for backward research. The request determines how many starting instruments the engine considers.

Mode	Starting scope	When to use it
Folder mode	Each PDF in the selected survey folder becomes a seed	Review a prepared packet
Seed mode	One instrument specified by `seed_ref`	Trace backward from a particular deed or lease

Both modes use the same sourcing guards and downstream analysis. Finding a patent on one branch does not end folder-mode research while other starting instruments or cited references remain unresolved.

Follow citations backward, then reason forward

The engine first follows source-of-title references backward to predecessor instruments. It then organizes the evidence chronologically and carries interests forward through the supported conveyances.

flowchart LR
    accTitle: Evidence pipeline
    accDescr: Source PDFs pass through extraction, quality review, chain reconstruction and exact ownership calculation, then proposed reports and human review.
    A["Source PDFs"] --> B["Extract text<br/>and fields"]
    B --> C["Quality review"]
    C --> D["Chain and<br/>exact fractions"]
    D --> E["Proposed<br/>reports"]
    E --> F["Human review"]

The diagram shows five stages:

Source PDFs: the prepared packet and any retrieved records provide the evidence.
Text and structured extraction: OCR reads scanned text; extraction identifies parties, dates, clauses, and instrument references.
Extraction quality review: the engine checks text conflicts, record identity, and inconsistent fields.
Chain reconstruction and ownership calculation: the engine connects references, flags gaps, and uses exact fractions for supported mineral transfers.
Proposed reports: the runsheet, ownership report, buying summary, and review sheet organize the work for a person to check.

Missing evidence remains visible through this process. A cited deed that cannot be found is an unresolved gap. A record with no predecessor citation can be the earliest available root of record. These situations differ: reaching an uncited root does not resolve a separately cited missing deed.

Mineral fee and royalty burdens

Mineral interest (MI) is an ownership share in the mineral fee. A nonparticipating royalty interest (NPRI) is a separate royalty interest. Do not add an NPRI fraction to the mineral-fee total.

In the fictional 160-acre example, Walnut Oil Company has 1/2 MI, and James and Mary Hale each have 1/4. Their mineral fractions total exactly 1. Thomas Reed’s separate 1/8 NPRI does not change that sum to 1 + 1/8.

The engine’s ownership fold is the chronological calculation that applies transfers and reservations to the supplied chain. It uses Python Fraction arithmetic, so supported fractions remain exact rather than accumulating decimal rounding error.

When a structured chain supports the calculation, the pipeline can replace model-generated ownership with the exact fold. On a chain with gaps, it retains proposed ownership and verification flags. It may confirm some matching interests without confirming disputed branches.

Exact arithmetic does not decide whether a fraction means half the tract or half the grantor’s interest. That interpretation must match the operative language. Probate distributions, community property, life estates, and reservations also need source review. Missing or malformed shares cannot safely be filled in merely to make the total equal one.

Three signals with different scopes

Signal	What it establishes	What remains for review
Job `complete`	Current required reports, usable extraction quality review, an accepted sourcing stop state, and no document/depth coverage limit	Whether the recorded evidence is legally sufficient or independently approved
Ownership `verified`	The standalone tool’s supplied conveyance list produces mineral fractions summing to one with no integrity flags	Whether necessary instruments are absent or their operative language was interpreted correctly
Buying `closeable`	The standalone tool’s deterministic ownership result has no reported curative items	Whether an examiner approves the transaction or the title opinion

For example, a missing conveyance out of an apparent owner may leave a supplied list that still sums to one. The standalone tools cannot detect every omitted real-world instrument. A clean arithmetic result is narrower than verified present ownership.

Extraction confidence is a routing signal

GREEN, YELLOW, and RED identify document-reading or evidence conditions that guide further review. Read the written flags and notes rather than relying on color alone.

A GREEN extraction does not approve a title conclusion. An unflagged field can still be wrong. A missing cited predecessor remains an evidence problem even if the available documents were read confidently.

To apply these distinctions, follow Read and review the results. For sourcing stop states and missing records, read Documents, citations, and sourcing.

Keyboard shortcuts