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

Determinator coverage audit — what's in the cascade, what's missing, and a smart "I don't see my event" navigation #26

New Issue
Open
opened 2026-05-08 20:25:11 +00:00 by mAi · 1 comment
mAi commented 2026-05-08 20:25:11 +00:00
Collaborator
Copy Link

m's verbatim 2026-05-08 22:24 dogfooding the Fristenrechner Determinator:

We are still missing all kinds of orders in our decision tree. What do we need to do to cover everything? Can we maybe check what "options" we have covered in our tree and which we dont? I want to have a smart way to navigate people through the tree to determine what's next

Two halves to this:

Part 1 — Coverage audit

Enumerate the gap between paliad's authoritative event sources and the B1 cascade's leaves. Sources:

  • paliad.deadline_rules — every Regel the calculator can compute against (UPC RoP, ZPO, PatG, EPO RoP, DPMA, etc.)
  • paliad.event_types — the surface event-type registry (Klageerwiderung, Replik, Duplik, Berufungsbegründung, Berufung, Nichtigkeitsklage, …)
  • paliad.event_categories — the cascade tree (parent + children, what cms-eingang.gegenseite.upc-rev.berufungsschrift resolves to)
  • paliad.deadline_concepts (mig 037) + paliad.deadline_concept_event_types (mig 073/074) — the Regel ↔ event_type junction
  • klaus's earlier UPC RoP audit (docs/research-upc-rop-deadline-rules-2026-05-08.md from t-paliad-159 / curie's prior shift)

For each source, ask: which rows can a user actually REACH via the cascade today? Which can't?

Deliver:

  • docs/research-determinator-coverage-2026-05-08.md with:
    • Table: every rule grouped by jurisdiction → reachable Y/N from cascade → recommended cascade path if missing
    • Table: every event_type → reachable Y/N → recommended cascade path if missing
    • Headline gaps: which categories of orders / rulings / submissions are entirely uncovered (likely candidates: court orders that aren't entry events but procedural orders — Beweisbeschluss, Hinweisbeschluss, Streitwertbeschluss, etc. UPC R.355 procedural orders; EPO appeal communications; DPMA Beanstandungsbescheide)
    • Quantified summary: "X of Y rules reachable; Z gaps"

This is research, not implementation. No code changes. Output the doc to a branch + commit + push.

Part 2 — Smart "I don't see my event" navigation (deferred design)

m wants a UX path for when the user's event ISN'T in the cascade. Possible shapes:

  • A free-text search box at every cascade depth ("Beweisbeschluss" → suggests closest leaves with a "that's not it" fallback)
  • A persistent "Mein Ereignis ist nicht dabei" escape button at every level → opens a manual entry form with rule-only / no-rule paths
  • A breadcrumb-aware "weiter unten suchen" that flattens deeper levels into the current row's chip set when the user can't pick at the current depth

Don't design this yet — your audit output will feed the design. Surface in §3 of the audit doc which of these is the strongest fit given the actual gap distribution. We'll decide whether to extend minkowski's in-flight row-by-row work (m/paliad#25) or hire an inventor for a separate pass.

Hard requirements

  • Read t-paliad-159's RoP audit doc first — half the data is already curated there.
  • No code changes; just the markdown doc + a single commit on a branch.
  • Per-jurisdiction sections (UPC, DE, EPO, DPMA) so the gaps are scannable per practice area.
  • No hour estimates.

Filed by paliad/head from m's 2026-05-08 22:24 instruction.

m's verbatim 2026-05-08 22:24 dogfooding the Fristenrechner Determinator: > We are still missing all kinds of orders in our decision tree. What do we need to do to cover everything? Can we maybe check what "options" we have covered in our tree and which we dont? I want to have a smart way to navigate people through the tree to determine what's next Two halves to this: ## Part 1 — Coverage audit Enumerate the gap between paliad's authoritative event sources and the B1 cascade's leaves. Sources: - `paliad.deadline_rules` — every Regel the calculator can compute against (UPC RoP, ZPO, PatG, EPO RoP, DPMA, etc.) - `paliad.event_types` — the surface event-type registry (Klageerwiderung, Replik, Duplik, Berufungsbegründung, Berufung, Nichtigkeitsklage, …) - `paliad.event_categories` — the cascade tree (parent + children, what `cms-eingang.gegenseite.upc-rev.berufungsschrift` resolves to) - `paliad.deadline_concepts` (mig 037) + `paliad.deadline_concept_event_types` (mig 073/074) — the Regel ↔ event_type junction - klaus's earlier UPC RoP audit (`docs/research-upc-rop-deadline-rules-2026-05-08.md` from t-paliad-159 / curie's prior shift) For each source, ask: which rows can a user actually REACH via the cascade today? Which can't? Deliver: - `docs/research-determinator-coverage-2026-05-08.md` with: - Table: every rule grouped by jurisdiction → reachable Y/N from cascade → recommended cascade path if missing - Table: every event_type → reachable Y/N → recommended cascade path if missing - Headline gaps: which categories of orders / rulings / submissions are entirely uncovered (likely candidates: court orders that aren't entry events but procedural orders — Beweisbeschluss, Hinweisbeschluss, Streitwertbeschluss, etc. UPC R.355 procedural orders; EPO appeal communications; DPMA Beanstandungsbescheide) - Quantified summary: "X of Y rules reachable; Z gaps" This is research, not implementation. No code changes. Output the doc to a branch + commit + push. ## Part 2 — Smart "I don't see my event" navigation (deferred design) m wants a UX path for when the user's event ISN'T in the cascade. Possible shapes: - A free-text search box at every cascade depth ("Beweisbeschluss" → suggests closest leaves with a "that's not it" fallback) - A persistent "Mein Ereignis ist nicht dabei" escape button at every level → opens a manual entry form with rule-only / no-rule paths - A breadcrumb-aware "weiter unten suchen" that flattens deeper levels into the current row's chip set when the user can't pick at the current depth Don't design this yet — your audit output will feed the design. Surface in §3 of the audit doc which of these is the strongest fit given the actual gap distribution. We'll decide whether to extend minkowski's in-flight row-by-row work (m/paliad#25) or hire an inventor for a separate pass. ## Hard requirements - Read t-paliad-159's RoP audit doc first — half the data is already curated there. - No code changes; just the markdown doc + a single commit on a branch. - Per-jurisdiction sections (UPC, DE, EPO, DPMA) so the gaps are scannable per practice area. - No hour estimates. Filed by paliad/head from m's 2026-05-08 22:24 instruction.
mAi commented 2026-05-08 20:34:46 +00:00
Author
Collaborator
Copy Link

Audit doc filed: docs/research-determinator-coverage-2026-05-08.md on mai/curie/researcher-determinator @ f4815a9.

Headline: 71/76 (93%) of true Fristenrechner deadlines reachable from cascade. Single biggest fixable cluster: EP_GRANT (4 rules) + UPC_INF.inf.app_to_amend — a 5-row migration lifts coverage to 100%.

§4 framing recommends P2 (persistent 'Ich finde mein Ereignis nicht' escape with capture) + P1 (free-text search per cascade level). P3 deferred. Type γ (tag-don't-react for incoming court events) flagged as a separate design problem out of scope here.

Per-jurisdiction inventory: UPC, DE, EPO, DPMA. §2.6 cross-cutting table covers the procedural-order categories you flagged (Hinweisbeschluss, Beweisbeschluss, Streitwertbeschluss, Versäumnisurteil, R.71(3), Beanstandungsbescheid).

Audit doc filed: docs/research-determinator-coverage-2026-05-08.md on mai/curie/researcher-determinator @ f4815a9. Headline: 71/76 (93%) of true Fristenrechner deadlines reachable from cascade. Single biggest fixable cluster: EP_GRANT (4 rules) + UPC_INF.inf.app_to_amend — a 5-row migration lifts coverage to 100%. §4 framing recommends P2 (persistent 'Ich finde mein Ereignis nicht' escape with capture) + P1 (free-text search per cascade level). P3 deferred. Type γ (tag-don't-react for incoming court events) flagged as a separate design problem out of scope here. Per-jurisdiction inventory: UPC, DE, EPO, DPMA. §2.6 cross-cutting table covers the procedural-order categories you flagged (Hinweisbeschluss, Beweisbeschluss, Streitwertbeschluss, Versäumnisurteil, R.71(3), Beanstandungsbescheid).
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
1 Participants
Notifications
Due Date
No due date set.
Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: m/paliad#26
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?