Researcher draft for Workstream A — per-rule proposals for rule_code +
legal_source on the 130 active+published deadline_rules with rule_code IS
NULL. Grouped by proceeding (53 PT rows) and orphan-bucket (77 rows with
proceeding_type_id IS NULL).
~75 HIGH/MED proposals, ~47 FLAG entries pending m's call (court-set
event-markers, combined-pleading rows, ambiguous orphans, RoP
sub-paragraph spot-checks). Profiles the field convention from the 83
already-populated rows. READ-ONLY phase: no DB writes, no migration yet
— mig 097 follows once m signs off.
Side-fix candidate: normalize the one outlier RoP.49.1 -> RoP.049.1 on
rev.defence as part of mig 097.
m + paliadin walked the open questions; new §0.3 records the calls so
the proposal doc reflects the final shape before m ingests via
/admin/rules. Net stays at 4 new rules (2 PO + 2 always-fire merits-
appeal spawns). de_inf.erwidg flips to court-set per ZPO §276(1) S.2.
No ccr-defendant PO, no ccr.appeal duplication, no R.263 deadline.
Drafts the 4 coverage questions the mig 093 commit body left open for
legal review (t-paliad-200 closeout):
1. Preliminary Objection (RoP 19) on UPC_INF + UPC_REV — 2 new rules,
party=defendant, 1 month from SoC/SfR served, flag-gated with_po.
2. Cross-proceeding APP spawn (RoP 220.1(a)) from UPC_INF + UPC_REV
into the UPC merits-appeal proceeding — 2 spawn rules, party=both,
2 months from R.118 decision, flag-gated with_appeal. Third
Pipeline-A relic (ccr.appeal) recommended not seeded — CCR appeal
is structurally absorbed into inf.appeal_spawn because one R.118
decision = one appeal window in the unified UPC_INF (CCR-as-flag)
model.
3. ccr.amend / rev.amend — claim "safe to drop" verified for patent
amendment (fully covered by inf.app_to_amend / rev.app_to_amend
chains under with_ccr+with_amend / with_amend flags). R.263 case-
amendment is court-discretionary; recommended NOT modelled.
4. zpo.* family — klage / vertanz / berufung redundancy verified
(de_inf.klage, de_inf.anzeige, de_inf.berufung / de_inf_olg.berufung
cover them). klageerw exposes a discrepancy on de_inf.erwidg
(6-week heuristic vs ZPO §276.1 S.2 court-set 2-week floor) — flagged
as a PATCH on the existing row, not a new rule. Task brief's mention
of "Vertagungsantrag" is a misread of zpo.vertanz (= Verteidigungs-
anzeige, not Vertagungsantrag); §227 itself recommended NOT modelled.
Net: 4 new rules drafted in Track B, 3 optional PATCHes in Track A, 12
FLAGs surfaced for m's decision before /admin/rules ingest. Appeal target
referenced by ROLE (not code) pending t-paliad-204 proceeding-code
rename — m picks final spawn_proceeding_type_id at ingest.
Per-rule template matches docs/proposals/orphan-concepts-2026-05-15.md.
Read-only research; no DB writes, no migration files. The spawn_proceeding_type_id
column is unused in live data today — these spawn rules will be the
first real consumer.
