"For instance, if a non-attorney decides not to show a mortgage because it is released - that decision seems to depart from mere 'abstracting' and delve into 'examining.'"

From a Connecticut perspective:  Well said.  As a non-attorney I report what I find, not what I think is "important."  For example, I find a recorded mortgage; I check for assignments and releas; I note both the mortage information AND the corresponding assignment and release information.  I LOOK at each recorded document, noting any issues or discrepancies on my abstract.  It is up to the attorney that "examines" my "abstract" to make the determination if the mortgage was released.  I may KNOW it's OK, but it is not my call to make that decision and leave it out of the title abstract that follows my summary.

Sadly, in today's work faster, pay less world, the ART of title abstracting is disappearing.  I sometimes miss the old days of reviewing handwritten copies of recorded documents and handwritten indexes.  Particularly those old dusty, 10 pound books with faded brown handwriting where "alphabetical" meant only the first letter of each last name or business in almost chronological order for the year.