Phase 1 audit (AUDIT ONLY, no implementation). 799 lines, mai/pauli/fristen-logic-audit.
Headline findings:
- THREE parallel deadline-generation systems coexist with overlapping
intent:
- Pipeline A (proceeding-driven) — paliad.deadline_rules (172 rows),
FristenrechnerService.Calculate, drives /tools/fristenrechner +
SmartTimeline.
- Pipeline B (single-rule subset of A) — Pathway B cascade click.
- Pipeline C (event-driven, youpc legacy) — paliad.trigger_events
(110) + paliad.event_deadlines (77), EventDeadlineService.Calculate,
drives "Was kommt nach…" tab. Disjoint corpus from A.
- Rule corpus is RICHER than the brief implied: 32 columns, 172 rules
across 27 proceeding_types (132 fristenrechner + 40 litigation). The
dual-corpus is a latent footgun: paliad.projects.proceeding_type_id
accepts both categories with no CHECK constraint, so a project's
SmartTimeline depends on which code lands first.
- Data model already encodes most of m's mental model:
multi-deadline triggers via parent_id chains (deepest live: 3
levels in UPC_INF), conditional via condition_flag (AND-only),
flag-swap via alt_duration_value / alt_rule_code, court-set via
heuristic + 4-bucket classification, holiday adjustment via
HolidayService+CourtService.
- Real gaps (§6, 13 of them):
- Pipeline A/C redundancy (different capabilities, disjoint data).
- Litigation vs fristenrechner corpus drift (no contract).
- is_mandatory + is_optional overlap.
- deadline_concept_event_types is config layer, NOT trigger model.
- No real event-driven trigger endpoint.
- AND-only condition_flag (no OR/NOT/compound).
- Cross-proceeding spawn half-wired.
- 9 orphan concepts with rule_count=0 (incl wiedereinsetzung,
schriftsatznachreichung, weiterbehandlung).
- condition_rule_id dead column.
- Instance dimension (LG/OLG/BGH) not on paliad.projects.
- 1/26 deadlines linked to rule_id (anchor-from-actuals barely
used).
- Court-set is heuristic, not first-class column.
- Pipeline A lacks before / working_days / combine_op.
- The big m's-question: "all in the Rules so we should be able to
manage" is FALSE today. Rules edits = SQL migrations only. §8
proposes a 3-step ladder: status-quo / read-only admin / full
editor with audit log.
- §7 has concrete extension proposal for each §6 gap (migration size
costed).
- §9 has 15 open questions for m to call before Phase 2 starts.
- Live data sparse: 11/11 projects NULL proceeding_type_id, 1/26
deadlines with rule_id — demand-side mostly empty even though
supply-side (rules) is rich.
NOT cronus per memory directive 2026-05-06. NOT self-merged. Awaiting
m's go/no-go.
mAi
b455df265e