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.
mAi
35aa5e63c0