Master Chicago Notes-Bibliography vs Author-Date Systems

Chicago has two systems and the wrong one gets you marked down. Give it your discipline and a handful of mixed source types, and it lays out the full note, the shortened note and the bibliography entry for each, in both Notes-Bibliography and Author-Date. You stop guessing which comma goes where and see the two formats next to each other for the same source.

I am an advanced researcher switching between Chicago 17th edition's two systems, Notes-Bibliography (NB) and Author-Date (AD), depending on discipline requirements. My current project is in {DISCIPLINE}.

For the following {NUMBER_OF_SOURCES} mixed source types (book chapter, journal article, archival document, online source), demonstrate:

1. Full footnote/endnote format (NB) and shortened subsequent note for each source
2. Author-date in-text citation and reference list entry (AD) for each source
3. A clear decision framework: which system to use by discipline and why
4. How ibid., op. cit., and shortened citations work in NB, and when each is appropriate
5. Edge cases: citing a source with no author, citing a multi-volume work, and handling a translated primary source

Sources:
{SOURCES_LIST}

Present results in parallel columns where possible. Assume I have access to the full Chicago Manual and need precision over simplification.