better notice would have been nice

I edited my earlier response as a comparison with the IWRF show's i misread some content. Highlights of what's different from the IWRF would be helpful for comment, to prevent knuckleheads like me from responding to incorrect assumptions.
So the AGM is a couple weeks away and we're only now getting a manual- but without statements of what's different so we know what to agree with or contest.

Is anybody out there?

Hello?

notice

Yes- a couple is generally 2, though in these modern times the definition of a"a couple" has come to include some odd relationships beyond the traditional. I'll concede that you've given us 4 weeks, and it's only 98 pages of materials for review, and about 32 days to review- that's only 3 pages a day that need to be read and crossed referenced to the other manual to determine changes/questions for the AGM.
Of course, this also needs to be done in advance of the AGM and discussed with team reps and team members for input, so maybe shave 7-10 days of that earlier 32 and you're down to 22-25 days which is about three weeks. So yes, my use of the term "a couple" was clearly outrageous hyperbole. Since it's only the manual that will govern who can and can't play the sport- then 23 days or so seems more than sufficient time for a competent review to take place before deciding to vote it into law.
However, the simple inclusion of highlights or an accompanying note outlining spefcific differences between the 2 docs would certainly make that more reasonable.

A summary would be great

A summary would be great Trisha! I personally don't have enough time to try and compare the 2 in order to figure out the differences.

Brian Burger