Fact Check: Time Card Calculator with Lunch

The FAQ in the tool's FAQ notes that California, Alaska, Nevada, and Colorado have daily-OT statutes but explicitly defers stacked / state-specific rules to the State Overtime Calculator. A user picking Daily · over 12h in this tool gets a 1.5× multiplier, NOT California's 2× double-time rule — the methodology page is explicit about this. No claim is broken; the modes are presented as configurable, not as state-specific. Future quality-check round might consider whether the mode labels could mislead a California user (already flagged in quality-check.md § "Conversion path").

The regulation names "the nearest 5 minutes, or to the nearest one-tenth or quarter of an hour" — that's 5, 6, and 15 minutes, NOT 5/10/15. The 10-minute interval is common payroll practice but is not literally regulation-named. The 30-minute interval is uncommon AND not regulation-named. Suggested fix: update the doc-comment to read: Matches FLSA-acceptable rounding intervals: 5 and 15 are named in 29 CFR §785.48(b) ("nearest 5 minutes" / "nearest one-quarter of an hour"); 10 and 30 are common payroll convention beyond the regulation's literal text. The CALCULATION is correct (rounding to any interval is mathematically sound); the claim about which intervals are "named" by the regulation is paraphrased loosely.

The regulation's actual "provided" clause: "provided that it is used in such a manner that it will not result, over a period of time, in failure to compensate the employees properly for all the time they have actually worked." Our paraphrase compresses this without changing the meaning. ✓

Section title is "Use of time clocks" per eCFR. ✓

Section title is "Judicial construction" per eCFR. ✓

This is the load-bearing ⚠. Our methodology page treats Camp as settled law. The Court of Appeal opinion was depublished-in-effect (binding-precedent-status revoked) the moment review was granted. The methodology page should disclose the pending Supreme Court review so readers can verify currency. Suggested fix: add a sentence to the rounding callout and to the methodology page: "Camp is currently under California Supreme Court review (S277518). The Court of Appeal opinion has persuasive value only per CA Rule 8.1115(e)(1); employers should track the Supreme Court's eventual decision."

The year is wrong. Methodology page and FAQ say "Woodworth v. Loma Linda (2024)"; the actual decision date is 2023. Suggested fix: update both the methodology page and FAQ: to read "Woodworth v. Loma Linda (2023)". Two places to fix.

Currency caveat: the Camp Court of Appeal holding is currently under California Supreme Court review (S277518). The methodology / FAQ should note that the rule is "as of the Camp Court of Appeal opinion, currently pending Supreme Court review" rather than settled law. The Woodworth year is wrong (2023 not 2024). Suggested fix: rewrite the rounding callout to say something like: California courts have moved toward rejecting rounding when actual time can be captured — recent decisions <em>Camp v. Home Depot</em> (2022, currently under California Supreme Court review) and <em>Woodworth v. Loma Linda</em> (2023, Court of Appeal).