Although the work has been described as the earliest known complete collection of officially approved judicial cases, only the names being fictitious (see introduction to the Lidai panli pandu ed.), it is in fact a collection of fictitious cases written as examination models, “writing decisions” (shupan 書判) being an important test for selecting officials during the Tang. The pan in the Tang were “decisions”, or even “opinions”, in the general sense, i.e.dealing with difficult or dubious administrative cases of any sort; therefore only part of the cases in the present work are of a judicial nature: some deal with administrative discipline, while others are essentially policy proposals set in the form of memorials. The 75 (in the Siku ed.) or 78 (in the Quan Tang wen) entries are arranged according to a list of 48 (Siku) or 50 (Quan Tang wen) civilian and military departments and offices belonging to the central government and imperial palace, starting with the grand secretariat (zhongshu sheng 中書省) and ending with the bureau of gardens (goudun shu 勾盾署; the case is lacking for this last entry [though not in the two Beiping shanben copies]), with either 1 or 2 entries per category. The “cases” concern either the mistakes or crimes of officials belonging to the institutions cited, or problems having arisen within their jurisdiction. Each entry features a short presentation of the problem at hand, followed by the text itself, set in flowery parallel-sentence style (pianwen 駢文) and laden with literary and historical allusions. In the Liu Yunpeng recension, which was used for most subsequent editions, an abundance of explanatory notes are inserted in the text; likewise, the historical origins of each institution and its nature under the Tang are explained in a footnote at the head of each category. In the eyes of the Siku commentators, Hong Mai‟s 洪邁 criticism in an entry of his Rongzhai suibi 容齋隨筆, to the effect that Zhang Zhuo is accumulating stories rather than deciding on punishment and discussing the law, is unjustified inasmuch as the work was composed for the sake of literary allusions, not of “established law” (本為隸事而作，不為定律而作). The commentators also remark that, whereas the early Song literary anthology Wenyuan yinghua 文苑英華 contains many such model judgments from the Tang period (the pan section in the Wenyuan yinghua covers j. 503-552), they are mostly unsigned; the only attributed collections are those by Zhang Zhuo and Bai Juyi (see under Baidao pan), the former emphasizing stylistic elegance (ruli 縟麗) and the latter, fluency (liuli 流利).