Impedance
The four-lens methodology tells you what kind of argument you have. The impedance maps tell you where to take it. Together they form a complete diagnostic-and-routing tool.
The maps below are organized by jurisdiction and track. Each page shows three views of the same court system:
- Court receiver profiles — what each tribunal can engage with on the merits, what it can hear with limitation, and what it is structurally incapable of receiving (the load-bearing hostile vs. blocked distinction)
- Path structure — how the case moves between courts, with transition deadlines and what changes at each gate
- Four-lens matrix — where each lens argument can be received as you move up the hierarchy
The framework essay Routing Failure introduces the impedance vocabulary in detail.
On the receptivity ratings
Every receptivity rating on these pages is an analytical judgment, not a lookup value. Each rating reflects the four-lens methodology applied to one specific (court, argument-type) pair, accounting for the court’s institutional alignment, scope of review, and observed behavior in published opinions. Ratings change as doctrine moves — Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (2024) materially shifted the delegation profile of every federal Article III court that handles agency-statute questions, and similar adjustments accompany any significant Supreme Court decision.
Pages are reviewed periodically. The “doctrinal context” section on each jurisdiction page lists the cases most relevant to that jurisdiction’s current ratings.
Coverage
This is rev 1 of the impedance maps. Coverage expands incrementally according to the project plan. The Texas Type B criminal track is the canonical first instance; federal tax and additional state instances follow.