This Appeals Council Order came across my desk today. The AC remanded the claim for lack of compliance with Ruling 24-3p, using this language:

The vocational expert did not comply with the requirements of Social Security Ruling 24- 3p, and the Administrative Law Judge did not otherwise obtain the needed information (see also HALLEX HA 01260.074). As explained in Social Security Ruling 24-3p, our adjudicators are responsible for evaluating vocational expert evidence within the context of the overall evidence in a claim. If the vocational expert does not provide the expected information and explanation as outlined in Social Security Ruling 24-3p, the Administrative Law Judge will usually need lo develop the record with sufficient evidence to make a supported finding at steps four and five. In the present case, the vocational expert did not identify the data sources relied on in providing evidence, he did not explain his general approach to estimating job numbers, and there is no evidence that the record was developed with the needed information as required in Social Security Ruling 24-3p. Accordingly, because the vocational expert testimony is not compliant with the requirements in Social Security Ruling 24-3p, additional vocational testimony consistent with the requirements of Social Security Ruling 24-3p is required (see also HALLEX HA 01260.074).

Now, this will be easy for the ALJ to fix upon remand. But it is interesting that the Appeals Council is enforcing these requirements. Ruling 24-3p, in my view, is just a bandage over the scab of outdated vocational evidence used routinely by vocational witnesses and accepted by Social Security at disability hearings. The randomness of this evidence is a significant procedural due process problem for the SSA. I haven’t had a chance to litigate it yet in federal court, but that day will come.

This AC remand was from December 2025. The ALJs will get the memo soon enough. But in the meantime, the lack of inquiry at hearing about data sources is a basis for a remand.