m/paliad
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues 146 Pull Requests 8 Actions 1 Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

UPC Damages proceeding: missing post-submission court followup (oral hearing, interim conference, appeal route) #117

New Issue
Open
opened 2026-05-25 15:15:48 +00:00 by mAi · 0 comments
mAi commented 2026-05-25 15:15:48 +00:00
Collaborator
Copy Link

m's report (2026-05-25 17:15)

I just noticed that in the damages proceedings we are lacking any court followup after the last submission. No oral hearing, no interim conference, no possibility to appeal...?! That needs to be fixed.

Scope

The UPC Damages proceeding (upc.dmgs.cfi) currently models the application + parties' submissions but stops there. Missing the standard post-submission court steps:

  1. Interim Conference (UPC RoP R.105) — analogous to the inf proceeding's interim conference
  2. Oral Hearing (UPC RoP R.118 / R.250) — fixed by court, after written procedure
  3. Decision (UPC RoP R.355 / damages-specific) — the court's damages award
  4. Appeal route (UPC RoP R.220 onwards) — appealable decisions trigger the appeal track
  5. Possibly Application for damages indication (R.131) if not already modelled

What to do

  1. Inspect current paliad.deadline_rules for proceeding_type_id matching the upc.dmgs.cfi proceeding. Catalog what's there + what's missing.
  2. Cross-reference with curie's #94 audit doc — §3.1 may already flag some of these as missing.
  3. Add rules for:
    • upc.dmgs.cfi.interim_conference (R.105 — same shape as the inf version)
    • upc.dmgs.cfi.oral_hearing (R.118 / R.250 — court-set, anchored on close of written procedure)
    • upc.dmgs.cfi.decision (court-set, anchored on oral hearing — same shape as the inf decision rule)
    • Wire the appeal-spawn from upc.dmgs.cfi.decision to upc.apl.merits (analogous to mig 095's inf appeal spawn — curie's §9.13/§9.15 + Q9 m approved 'wire is_spawn for upc.dmgs.cfi.app' but that was for the spawn IN to damages; this issue covers the spawn OUT to appeal)
  4. Single migration, next free slot (verify via ls internal/db/migrations/ | tail — likely 132 or 133 after knuth's Wave 1).
  5. Idempotent INSERT guards per row.
  6. Cite curie's audit + each statute reference.

Files most likely touched

  • New internal/db/migrations/<slot>_upc_dmgs_court_followup.up.sql (+ down)
  • Possibly internal/services/projection_service.go if the appeal-spawn execution needs wiring (overlaps with #114 / Wave 5 work)

Hard rules

  • Don't overlap knuth's Wave 1 migration (#116). Coordinate slot.
  • Use Wave 2 primitives (mig 128) for court-set + cross-anchor needs.
  • Cite curie's audit doc + the statute references.
  • go build ./... && go test ./internal/... && cd frontend && bun run build clean.
  • Branch: mai/<worker>/upc-dmgs-court-followup.

Out of scope

  • Damages-determination phase outside the court hearing (e.g. accounting orders) — defer to a follow-up if it's even modelled separately.
  • Cross-proceeding accounting routes.

Reporting

mai report completed with branch + SHAs + migration slot + the rules added (with statute citations) + UX verification: open a damages project → Verfahrensablauf timeline → confirm interim conference + oral hearing + decision + appeal-route now visible.

## m's report (2026-05-25 17:15) > I just noticed that in the damages proceedings we are lacking any court followup after the last submission. No oral hearing, no interim conference, no possibility to appeal...?! That needs to be fixed. ## Scope The UPC Damages proceeding (`upc.dmgs.cfi`) currently models the application + parties' submissions but stops there. Missing the standard post-submission court steps: 1. **Interim Conference** (UPC RoP R.105) — analogous to the inf proceeding's interim conference 2. **Oral Hearing** (UPC RoP R.118 / R.250) — fixed by court, after written procedure 3. **Decision** (UPC RoP R.355 / damages-specific) — the court's damages award 4. **Appeal route** (UPC RoP R.220 onwards) — appealable decisions trigger the appeal track 5. Possibly **Application for damages indication** (R.131) if not already modelled ## What to do 1. Inspect current `paliad.deadline_rules` for `proceeding_type_id` matching the `upc.dmgs.cfi` proceeding. Catalog what's there + what's missing. 2. Cross-reference with curie's #94 audit doc — §3.1 may already flag some of these as missing. 3. Add rules for: - `upc.dmgs.cfi.interim_conference` (R.105 — same shape as the inf version) - `upc.dmgs.cfi.oral_hearing` (R.118 / R.250 — court-set, anchored on close of written procedure) - `upc.dmgs.cfi.decision` (court-set, anchored on oral hearing — same shape as the inf decision rule) - Wire the appeal-spawn from `upc.dmgs.cfi.decision` to `upc.apl.merits` (analogous to mig 095's inf appeal spawn — curie's §9.13/§9.15 + Q9 m approved 'wire is_spawn for upc.dmgs.cfi.app' but that was for the spawn IN to damages; this issue covers the spawn OUT to appeal) 4. Single migration, next free slot (verify via `ls internal/db/migrations/ | tail` — likely 132 or 133 after knuth's Wave 1). 5. Idempotent INSERT guards per row. 6. Cite curie's audit + each statute reference. ## Files most likely touched - New `internal/db/migrations/<slot>_upc_dmgs_court_followup.up.sql` (+ down) - Possibly `internal/services/projection_service.go` if the appeal-spawn execution needs wiring (overlaps with #114 / Wave 5 work) ## Hard rules - Don't overlap knuth's Wave 1 migration (#116). Coordinate slot. - Use Wave 2 primitives (mig 128) for court-set + cross-anchor needs. - Cite curie's audit doc + the statute references. - `go build ./... && go test ./internal/... && cd frontend && bun run build` clean. - Branch: `mai/<worker>/upc-dmgs-court-followup`. ## Out of scope - Damages-determination phase outside the court hearing (e.g. accounting orders) — defer to a follow-up if it's even modelled separately. - Cross-proceeding accounting routes. ## Reporting `mai report completed` with branch + SHAs + migration slot + the rules added (with statute citations) + UX verification: open a damages project → Verfahrensablauf timeline → confirm interim conference + oral hearing + decision + appeal-route now visible.
mAi self-assigned this 2026-05-25 15:15:48 +00:00
Sign in to join this conversation.
No Branch/Tag Specified
Branches Tags
Labels
Clear labels
deferred
Parked — not pursuing now, may un-park later
done
Work completed by an agent; awaiting m to close
No Label
Milestone
No items
No Milestone
Projects
Clear projects
No project
Assignees
Clear assignees
mAi m
No Assignees mAi
1 Participants
Notifications
Due Date
No due date set.
Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: m/paliad#117
No description provided.
Delete Branch "%!s()"

Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?