Cross-tag not found

Hi. I’m getting a “tag not found” error and can’t figure out where I’m going wrong.

I have a definitions section with unnumbered definitions. One definition has numbered subparagraphs that I’m numbering using @enumerate-or and snippets and it’s working well:

@enumerate-or(@#confidential-information-all-information, @#confidential-information-documents-and-generated-information, @#confidential-information-received-from-clients-and-partners,@#confidential-information-disclosure-entails-negative-consequences, @#confidential-information-any-other-information, @#confidential-information-existence-of-this-agreement)

In the last snippet there are cross-references to the first and penultimate subparagraphs/snippets. I’ve set up cross tags for those two snippets, but I’m getting the tag not found error.

The final snippet with the cross-references is:

the fact and terms of #°agreement and the fact that any information referred to in paragraphs §confidential-information-all or §confidential-information-any-other of this definition was made available to #recipient, that #°agreement was entered into or that discussions or negotiations related to #permitted-purpose

And here’s the error I’m getting:


Is this the right approach for what I’m trying to do? Any ideas/suggestions?

Interesting how you push the software to its limits!

Essentially, you assigned cross-tags to certain clauses, and then include those clauses as external-snippets in another clause.

I fully understand what you are trying to do, but this will not work. When you use a clause-file as a snippet, the software will actually only extract the body of that snippet — ignoring all other stuff inside that clause-file (e.g., the content title, the custom styling, the condition, … and the cross-tag).

Behind-the-scenes, the software actually builds up one giant clause, by extracting all the external snippets from the other clauses and inserting those extracted portions into the host file.

On a side note, if you would be wondering about the limitations imposed on definitions (because definition-files cannot contain sub-clauses in other files):

The reason is that definitions have a strong interdependency on all the other clauses: the software can only calculate which definitions to show, when it has calculated all the other clauses first (to know which defined terms are used there). But it does not stop there, because a definition for term A can refer to some term B, and the definition for term B can on its turn refer to some term C. So once the software inserts the definition for A, it suddenly also has to include a new definition for term B if the definition for A is the only location where B is mentioned. And so on for term C.

And it doesn’t even stop there. Because some other clause X may use a @has-definition special function in its own enabled-condition, so that clause X is only shown when a definition of B or C is visible. And if clause X then happens to be the only paragraph that mentions some defined term D…

I hope you see why (see also the other thread) we are so reluctant to introduce even more complexity regarding numbering and definitions.

I hate to say it, but there comes a point where legal content may have to be slightly rewritten in order to fit it into volume automation. Almost paradoxically, ClauseBase users understandably want to push for that last 5%, because the software gets them to the 95% point already. With other software, you hit so many walls that this just does not cross your mind. (You can of course automate from within MS Word, but that comes with an array of other problems.)

Thanks for the good explanation Maarten. I’ll rework the clauses.