diff --git a/rules/S3471/cfamily/rule.adoc b/rules/S3471/cfamily/rule.adoc
index 9d656e73632..3d019e51d35 100644
--- a/rules/S3471/cfamily/rule.adoc
+++ b/rules/S3471/cfamily/rule.adoc
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 == Why is this an issue?
 
-In a base class, ``++virtual++`` indicates that a function can be overridden. In a derived class, it indicates an override. But given the specifier's dual meaning, it would be both clearer and more sound to use derived class-specific specifiers instead: ``++override++`` or ``++final++``.
+In a base class, ``++virtual++`` indicates that a function can be overridden. In a derived class, it indicates an override. But given the specifier's dual meaning, it would be clearer and more sound to use derived class-specific specifiers instead: ``++override++`` or ``++final++``.
 
 [source,cpp]
 ----
@@ -12,7 +12,10 @@ public:
     c++;
   }
 };
+----
 
+[source,cpp,diff-id=1,diff-type=noncompliant]
+----
 class FastCounter: public Counter {
 public:
   virtual void count() {  // Noncompliant: ambiguous
@@ -24,7 +27,7 @@ public:
 * ``++override++`` indicates that a function is intended to override a base-class function. The compiler will issue a warning if this is not the case.
 
 
-[source,cpp]
+[source,cpp,diff-id=1,diff-type=compliant]
 ----
 class FastCounter: public Counter {
 public:
@@ -36,7 +39,7 @@ public:
 
 * ``++final++`` indicates a function ``++override++`` that cannot itself be overridden. The compiler will issue a warning if the signature does not match the signature of a base-class ``++virtual++`` function. `override` is redundant when `final` is specified.
 
-[source,cpp]
+[source,cpp,diff-id=1,diff-type=compliant]
 ----
 class FastCounter: public Counter {
 public:
@@ -86,7 +89,7 @@ specifier to be dropped
 \[~evgeny.mandrikov] given the fact that it's only a compiler warning to have a ``++virtual++`` function in a derived class with a mismatched signature, do we want a rule on that?
 
 
-E.G. 
+E.G.
 
 ----
 class BaseClass