paliad/docs/research-deadlines-completeness-2026-05-25.md

Bulletproof completeness audit — paliad.deadline_rules vs statutory sources

Author: curie (researcher) Date: 2026-05-25 Task: t-paliad-263 (m/paliad#94) Mode: read-only research, no DB writes Branch: mai/curie/researcher-bulletproof

Scope confirmed by head (paliad/head → paliad/curie, 2026-05-25 15:13): UPC Rules of Procedure + EPC + PatG / ZPO / GebrMG, plus UPC Agreement / Statute where they create time-limits. No HLC-internal checklists exist in the current head's working tree.

Companion / prior audits this report supersedes-and-extends:

• docs/audit-fristenrechner-completeness-2026-04-30.md (curie, t-paliad-084) — youpc-vs-paliad gap analysis.
• docs/audit-upc-rop-deadlines-2026-05-08.md (curie, t-paliad-159) — first UPC RoP gap list (52 rules / 2 duration bugs).
• docs/audit-fristen-logic-2026-05-13.md (pauli, t-paliad-157) — schema audit; the codes used here (upc.inf.cfi, de.inf.lg, …) reflect the post-mig-096 rename.

Migration baseline: migration ≤ 122_deadlines_custom_rule_text (live as of 2026-05-25 14:00 UTC).

---

§0. TL;DR

• 20 active fristenrechner proceeding_types (live, is_active=true, lifecycle_state='published') carry 132 active rules. One extra _archived_litigation row holds 40 retired Pipeline-A rules from mig 093 — not surfaced anywhere, kept only for FK validity.

Jurisdiction	Active types	Active rules	Statute-bound rules audited
UPC (CFI + CoA)	9 (incl. upc.ccr.cfi alias)	67	67
EPA	3	23	23
DPMA	3	13	13
DE (LG/OLG/BGH/BPatG)	5	29	29
Total	20	132	132

• 5 high-impact bugs still live that the prior May 8 audit surfaced (2) plus 3 new ones identified here.

  • 🔴 upc.rev.cfi.defence 3 months, RoP.49.1 says 2 months. Flagged May 8; still live. ★★★ — every UPC_REV defendant.
  • 🔴 upc.rev.cfi.rejoin 2 months, RoP.52 says 1 month. Flagged May 8; still live. ★★★ — every UPC_REV proceeding.
  • 🟠 upc.apl.merits.response 2 months, RoP.235.1 says 3 months. New finding (May 8 audit recorded the rule as "3 months / present-wrong rule_code only" — actually live data shows 2 months, so the audit sample mis-recorded the duration too). ★★★ — every UPC main-track appeal respondent.
  • 🟠 de.inf.lg.beruf_begr chains parent = berufung (1mo) + 2mo = 3mo from urteil. ZPO §520(2) anchors the 2-month Begründungsfrist on service of urteil, not on filing of Berufung. New finding. ★★★ — every DE-first-instance appellant.
  • 🟠 de.inf.lg.replik + .duplik have parent_id=NULL so they fire on the trigger date (Klageerhebung) — sequence-order says 30/40 but the compute engine reads parent_id first. Reported as live UI bug by m via head (2026-05-25 13:13); confirmed by SQL. ★★★ — every DE-LG-Verletzung timeline.

• 5 rule-code / citation drift bugs still live from the May 8 audit (upc.apl.merits.notice, .grounds, .response, upc.rev.cfi.reply, .rejoin) — durations may or may not be right, but the cited legal_source / rule_code points at the wrong rule. Pure cosmetic on .notice/.grounds (durations are right); load-bearing on .rev.cfi.reply / .rejoin because the cited rule is what tells the lawyer where to look the rule up.

• 4 DPMA / DE citation bugs new in this audit, all citing PatG / ZPO sections that don't contain the cited deadline:

  • de.null.bpatg.erwidg cites DE.PatG.82.1; the 2-month Erwiderung is actually §82(3) (§82(1) is the 1-month Erklärungsfrist).
  • dpma.opp.dpma.erwiderung cites DE.PatG.59.3; §59(3) is about hearings, not a 4-month proprietor response. The 4-month figure is DPMA-internal practice, not statutory — should be court-set.
  • dpma.appeal.bpatg.begruendung cites DE.PatG.75.1; §75 is about aufschiebende Wirkung — there is no Begründungsfrist in PatG §73-§80 for the BPatG-Beschwerde. The 1-month figure is also non-statutory.
  • de.null.bgh.begruendung cites DE.PatG.111.1; §111 is about the grounds-of-appeal content (Verletzung des Bundesrechts), not the Begründungsfrist. de.null.bgh.erwiderung cites DE.PatG.111.3; §111(3) doesn't exist in the deadline sense.

• Wide UPC coverage gap inherited from May 8 audit, mostly un-closed: ~25 missing UPC RoP rules. Mig 095 (t-paliad-205) closed 4 of them (R.19 Preliminary Objection on UPC_INF and UPC_REV, R.220.1(a) merits-appeal spawn on both). The other ~21 (R.20.2, R.118.4, R.197.3, R.198, R.207.6.a, R.207.9, R.213, R.109.1/.4/.5, R.118.5, R.144, R.155, R.224.2(b), R.229.2, R.235.2, R.245.x, R.262.2, R.321.3, R.333.2, R.353, plus the DNI family R.63-R.69) are unchanged.

• EPC gaps: EPA opposition + Beschwerde modelled at the Article level only. Missing the entire Implementing Regulations family that drives day-to-day deadlines — R.71(3) approval period is half-modelled (the 4-month figure is there but the trigger anchor is broken: parent_id=NULL), R.79(1) proprietor response is modelled as a fixed 4-month period when it's actually court-set, R.116 oral-proceedings cut-off is modelled as duration-0/parent-NULL (works for some uses, not for others), R.121 / R.135 Weiterbehandlung is missing entirely (concept exists but no rule).

• DE/DPMA gaps: the entire Wiedereinsetzung family (PatG §123) is absent on the proceeding-tree side. weiterbehandlung and wiedereinsetzung concept slugs exist in the cascade (Pathway B) but no paliad.deadline_rules row computes them. Same for versaeumnisurteil-einspruch (ZPO §339 — 2 weeks).

• 15 ambiguities that need m's judgement, not a coder's fix — mostly around court-set vs statutory periods (e.g. richterliche Fristen under ZPO §276(1) S.2, §283 Schriftsatznachreichung, EPC R.79(1), §59(3) PatG) and around the "whichever is longer / later" arithmetic primitives still missing (R.198 / R.213 / R.245.2).

• Recommended fixes (§10) — total 41 items prioritised in 4 tiers. Tier 0 (5 hard duration bugs + 1 sequencing bug + 9 citation/anchor bugs) should ship first. Tier 1 (12 rule-fill gaps, ★★★ / ★★) next. Tier 2 + 3 are coverage breadth that needs scoping by m (Wiedereinsetzung, R.198 working-day arithmetic, full Implementing Regulations port).

---

§1. Methodology

For each of the 20 active proceeding_types I:

1. Pulled the live rule set via mcp__supabase__execute_sql against the youpc Postgres on 2026-05-25 14:00–15:00 UTC. Schema = paliad. Filter: is_active = true AND lifecycle_state = 'published'.
2. Enumerated the statutory deadlines in the relevant code for the proceeding's scope.
3. Cross-referenced each statutory deadline against the live rule set on (a) duration + unit, (b) anchor / parent, (c) party, (d) rule_code / legal_source citation, (e) sequencing.
4. Marked status: present-correct, present-wrong (duration), present-wrong (citation), present-wrong (anchor), present-wrong (party), partial, missing, n/a.
5. Frequency tag for prioritisation: ★★★ every case, ★★ common, ★ specialist.

1.1 Sources

All citations carry a date stamp and a URL. Where the text was checked against more than one source, both are listed.

Source	URL	Verified on	Used for
UPC Rules of Procedure (consolidated 18.05.2023, in force 2023-06-01)	https://www.unifiedpatentcourt.org/sites/default/files/upc_documents/rop_application_-_consolidated_18_05_2023.pdf	2026-05-25	All UPC RoP citations
UPC RoP verbatim text via data.laws_contents (youpc Postgres, law_type=UPCRoP, language=en)	youpc Supabase	2026-05-25	Cross-check on R.019.1, R.020.2, R.029.b/.c, R.049.1, R.051, R.051.p1, R.052, R.052.p1, R.220.1.a, R.224.1, R.224.1.a/.b, R.224.2, R.224.2.a/.b, R.235.1, R.235.2, R.237, R.238.1, R.238.2
European Patent Convention (EPC, 17th ed. 2020) — Articles	https://www.epo.org/en/legal/epc/2020/index.html (verbatim text per youpc data.laws_contents, law_type=EPC)	2026-05-25	EPC Articles 93, 99, 108, 112a, 116, 121, 123, 135
EPC Implementing Regulations — Rules (in force 2026 consolidated)	https://www.epo.org/en/legal/epc/2020/r71.html (and equivalents)	2026-05-25	EPC R.70(1), R.71(3), R.79(1)/(2), R.116(1), R.135
Patentgesetz (PatG) — gesetze-im-internet.de	https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/patg/	2026-05-25	§59, §73, §75, §82, §83, §99 ff., §100, §102, §110, §111
Zivilprozessordnung (ZPO) — gesetze-im-internet.de	https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/zpo/	2026-05-25	§253, §276, §277, §283, §296a, §339, §517, §520, §521, §524, §544, §548, §551, §554
Gebrauchsmustergesetz (GebrMG) — gesetze-im-internet.de	https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/gebrmg/	2026-05-25	§17 (Löschung), §18 (Verfahren) — referenced only to confirm out-of-scope: no GebrMG-rooted proceeding_type exists in paliad today

1.2 Conventions

• A rule here means a row in paliad.deadline_rules. paliad's local identifier is submission_code (post mig 098), e.g. upc.rev.cfi.defence.
• A statutory deadline means an obligation derived directly from the text of a procedural code, with a fixed period.
• "Court-set" / "richterliche Frist" means the statute authorises the court / DPMA / EPO to set the period — there is no fixed statutory duration. paliad models these with is_court_set = true (post mig ~079) or, legacy-style, duration_value = 0.
• "Anchoring" refers to which event the period runs from. paliad models this via parent_id (chain anchor) or anchor_alt (e.g. priority_date); a NULL parent_id with non-zero duration means the deadline runs from the user-supplied trigger date.

1.3 Hard constraint: "no fabricated provisions"

Where I'm not 100% sure of a citation (because the youpc law DB only covers UPC + EPC, not PatG / ZPO, and my web-fetch coverage of PatG / ZPO is partial), I flag the finding as "needs lawyer review" in §9 rather than asserting a fix. Five PatG / ZPO findings carry that tag.

---

§2. Current state inventory (per jurisdiction)

2.1 UPC

9 active types, 67 rules. upc.ccr.cfi is an alias proceeding that holds zero rules — it points at upc.inf.cfi rules under the with_ccr flag.

Code	Name	Rule count	Audited against
upc.inf.cfi	Verletzungsverfahren	15	RoP 19, 23, 25, 29.a-e, 30, 32, 151, 220.1(a)
upc.rev.cfi	Nichtigkeitsverfahren	17	RoP 19, 32, 42, 43.3, 49.1, 49.2.a, 49.2.b, 51, 52, 56.1/3/4, 220.1(a)
upc.pi.cfi	Einstweilige Maßnahmen	4	RoP 205, 207, 211
upc.disc.cfi	Bucheinsicht	4	RoP 141, 142.2, 142.3
upc.dmgs.cfi	Schadensbemessung	4	RoP 131.2, 137.2, 139
upc.apl.merits	Berufung	8	RoP 220.1, 224.1.a, 224.2.a, 235.1, 237, 238.1
upc.apl.order	Berufung gegen Anordnungen	5	RoP 220.1(c), 220.2, 220.3, 237, 238.2
upc.apl.cost	Berufung gegen Kostenentscheidung	2	RoP 221.1
upc.ccr.cfi	Widerklage auf Nichtigkeit (alias)	0	—

2.2 EPA

3 active types, 23 rules.

Code	Name	Rule count	Audited against
epa.grant.exa	EP-Erteilung	7	EPC Art. 93, R.70(1), R.71(3)
epa.opp.opd	EPA Einspruch	8	EPC Art. 99(1), 108, 116, 123; R.79(1), R.79(2), R.116(1)
epa.opp.boa	EPA Beschwerde	8	EPC Art. 108, 112a; R.116(1); RPBA Art. 12

2.3 DPMA

3 active types, 13 rules.

Code	Name	Rule count	Audited against
dpma.opp.dpma	DPMA Einspruch	4	PatG §59(1), §59(3)
dpma.appeal.bpatg	BPatG-Beschwerde	5	PatG §73(2), §74 ff.
dpma.appeal.bgh	BGH-Rechtsbeschwerde	4	PatG §100, §102

2.4 DE (national patent / civil)

5 active types, 29 rules.

Code	Name	Rule count	Audited against
de.inf.lg	LG-Verletzungsklage	8	ZPO §253, §276, §283, §296a, §517, §520(2)
de.inf.olg	OLG-Berufung Verletzung	7	ZPO §517, §520(2), §521(2), §524(2)
de.inf.bgh	BGH-Revision Verletzung	8	ZPO §544, §548, §551, §554
de.null.bpatg	BPatG-Nichtigkeitsklage	10	PatG §81 ff., §82, §83
de.null.bgh	BGH-Nichtigkeitsberufung	6	PatG §110, §111 / ZPO ref via §117 PatG

2.5 Cross-cutting: cascade vs proceeding-tree coverage

The cascade layer (paliad.event_categories + …_concepts + paliad.deadline_concepts) carries 56 concept "nouns" and ~153 cascade-leaf → concept mappings. 9 concepts are orphans (carry zero rules, so the cascade card dead-ends): counterclaim-for-revocation, schriftsatznachreichung, versaeumnisurteil-einspruch, weiterbehandlung, wiedereinsetzung, notice-of-defence-intention, plus 3 more. Inventory and recommendations live in docs/audit-fristen-logic-2026-05-13.md §3.4 — this audit covers only the proceeding-tree side.

---

§3. Findings — Missing rules (statute defines, paliad doesn't)

3.1 UPC RoP — 21 missing rules (out of ~25 flagged 2026-05-08, 4 closed by mig 095)

Notation: ★★★ every case, ★★ common, ★ specialist. Verbatim RoP text sampled from youpc data.laws_contents (law_type=UPCRoP, lang=en).

RoP §	Period	Trigger	Freq	Notes
R.20.2	14 days	Service of Preliminary Objection	★	Reply to PO. Companion to R.19 (which mig 095 added). Without R.20.2 the PO branch is half-modelled.
R.118.4	2 months	Final decision on validity served	★★	Application for orders consequential on validity. Common after central-division revocation.
R.118.5	n/a UPC	n/a	n/a	UPC has no Versäumnisurteil-Einspruch; closest is R.355 (review of contumacy).
R.144	0 (anchor)	Final decision on damages quantum	★	UPC_DAMAGES tree end-row missing.
R.155	1mo / 14d	Cost-decision opposition chain	★	UPC_COST_APPEAL only has the leave-to-appeal step; no Defence-to-cost-app row.
R.197.3	30 days	Saisie order served on respondent	★	Review application. Trigger event 65 exists; no rule attached.
R.198	31 calendar days OR 20 working days, whichever is longer	Saisie executed	★	Start proceedings on the merits. Blocked on working_days + combine='max' primitives (see §7 + §9).
R.207.6.a	14 days	Notification of deficiency in PI application	★★	Registry correction.
R.207.9	6 months	PI filed	★	Renewal of protective letter.
R.213	31 days OR 20 working days	PI granted	★★	Same arithmetic gap as R.198.
R.109.1	1 month before	Oral hearing date	★★	Simultaneous translation request. timing='before' schema supported but no rule populates it (see §7 cross-cutting).
R.109.4	2 weeks before	Oral hearing date	★★	Interpreter cost notification. timing='before'.
R.109.5	2 weeks after	Order of judge-rapporteur to lodge translations	★★	trigger event 113 exists; no rule.
R.224.2.b	15 days	Order under R.220.1(c) or decision under R.220.2/221.3 served	★★	Grounds-on-orders track. upc.apl.order has appeal-itself but no separate grounds row. Verified verbatim against UPCRoP.224.2.b (youpc DB).
R.229.2	14 days	Notification of appeal-deficiency	★	Registry correction in appeal context.
R.235.2	15 days	Statement of grounds (orders track) served	★★	Verified verbatim against UPCRoP.235.2 (youpc DB): "Within 15 days of service of grounds of appeal pursuant to Rule 224.2(b), any other party … may lodge a Statement of response". upc.apl.order has no standalone response row.
R.245.1	2 months	Final decision served	★	Application for rehearing.
R.245.2.a	2 months	Discovery of fundamental defect (or final decision service, whichever is later)	★	Outer cap 12mo. Needs multi-anchor + max-of-two-anchors arithmetic.
R.245.2.b	2 months	Discovery of criminal offence (or final decision service, whichever is later)	★	Same shape as 245.2.a.
R.262.2	14 days	Receipt of opposing party's confidentiality application	★★	Daily occurrence in HLC infringement work. Trigger event 25 exists; no rule.
R.320	2 months (cap 12 mo)	Wegfall des Hindernisses (Wiedereinsetzung)	★★	Cascade card exists (mig 063) but no proceeding-tree rule computes the deadline. Bridges proceedings → no obvious home in any one tree.
R.321.3	10 days	Preliminary objection referral to central division	★
R.333.2	15 days	Case-management order served	★★	Review-of-CMO. Routine in busy LDs.
R.353	1 month	Decision / order delivered	★	Rectification application.
DNI: R.63 / R.67.1 / R.69.1 / R.69.2	0 / 2mo / 1mo / 1mo	DNI cascade	★	No UPC_DNI proceeding_type exists. Fringe at HLC (zero published filings in 2026-Q1 per May 8 audit).
Registry-correction family: R.16.3.a, R.27.2, R.89.2, R.253.2	14 days each	Various deficiency notifications	★	All same 14-day duration; different trigger codes. Most natural home is cascade not proceeding-tree (see audit-fristenrechner-completeness-2026-04-30.md §3.1).

Closed since May 8 audit (verified by SQL):

• ✅ R.19 Preliminary Objection on UPC_INF — upc.inf.cfi.prelim, 1mo, RoP.019.1, flag-gated with_po — mig 095.
• ✅ R.19 Preliminary Objection on UPC_REV — upc.rev.cfi.prelim, 1mo, RoP.019.1, flag-gated with_po — mig 095 (cites R.19 i.V.m. R.46).
• ✅ R.220.1(a) merits-appeal spawn on UPC_INF — upc.inf.cfi.appeal_spawn, 2mo, is_spawn=true → upc.apl.merits — mig 095.
• ✅ R.220.1(a) merits-appeal spawn on UPC_REV — upc.rev.cfi.appeal_spawn, 2mo, is_spawn=true → upc.apl.merits — mig 095.

3.2 EPC Implementing Regulations — 4 missing rules

EPC ref	Period	Trigger	Freq	Notes
EPC R.135 (Weiterbehandlung)	2 months	Notification of loss of rights	★★	Concept weiterbehandlung exists in cascade (orphan); no rule. Applies broadly across epa.grant.exa and epa.opp.opd.
EPC R.99(2) / Art. 121	2 months	Loss-of-rights notification (further processing)	★★	Same family as R.135.
EPC Art. 112a(4)	2 months / 1 month	Discovery of grounds for review / decision served (whichever later)	★	paliad has epa.opp.boa.r106 (2 months, parent=entsch2) — but the rule doesn't model the "whichever later" outer cap (12 months from decision per Art. 112a(4)).
EPC Art. 99(1) — opposition fee paid	9 months (no extension)	Mention of grant in Patentblatt	★★★	epa.opp.opd.frist IS modelled correctly at 9 months. Note however: the rule is on epa.opp.opd but the trigger is opposition-fee-paid (per Art. 99(1) S.2 — "Notice of opposition shall not be deemed to have been filed until the opposition fee has been paid"). Not a gap, but a documentation note.

3.3 PatG / ZPO — 5 missing rules

Citation	Period	Trigger	Freq	Notes
PatG §123 (Wiedereinsetzung)	2 months	Wegfall des Hindernisses (cap 1 year)	★★	Cascade concept wiedereinsetzung exists; no rule on any DE/DPMA proceeding tree. Same modelling problem as UPC R.320 — bridges proceedings.
ZPO §339 (Versäumnisurteil-Einspruch)	2 weeks	Service of default judgment	★	Cascade concept versaeumnisurteil-einspruch orphan.
ZPO §544 — Nichtzulassungsbeschwerde-Begründung	2 months	Service of OLG-Urteil (NB: NOT from filing of NZB)	★★	de.inf.bgh.nzb_begr lists DE.ZPO.544.4, duration 2mo, parent=urteil_olg — modelled correctly. Listed here only to flag that the parent anchoring differs from de.inf.lg.beruf_begr which is wrong (see §7.1).
ZPO §283 (Schriftsatznachreichung) / §296a	court-set	post-Verhandlung schriftsatzfrist	★	Cascade concept schriftsatznachreichung orphan. Court-set period — modelling as is_court_set=true, duration=0 would suffice.
PatG §17(2) GebrMG / §18 GebrMG	1 month (Beschwerdefrist)	DPMA-Beschluss	★	Out of scope per head's confirmation (no GebrMG-rooted proceeding_type yet). Listed to confirm the deliberate gap.

3.4 DPMA — 0 missing rules

DPMA coverage is shallow but not gappy. The 3 active types (opposition, BPatG-Beschwerde, BGH-Rechtsbeschwerde) cover the statutory steps. The problems here are citation drift (§4.4) and anchor modeling (§7.4) rather than missing rules.

---

§4. Findings — Misattributed legal source

4.1 UPC RoP citation drift (5 still live from May 8)

Rule	Live rule_code	Live legal_source	Should be	Source verified
upc.apl.merits.notice	RoP.220.1	UPC.RoP.220.1	RoP.224.1.a / UPC.RoP.224.1.a	UPCRoP.224.1.a youpc DB
upc.apl.merits.grounds	RoP.220.1	UPC.RoP.220.1	RoP.224.2.a / UPC.RoP.224.2.a	UPCRoP.224.2.a
upc.apl.merits.response	null	null	RoP.235.1 / UPC.RoP.235.1	UPCRoP.235.1
upc.rev.cfi.reply	null	null	RoP.051 / UPC.RoP.51.p1	UPCRoP.051.p1
upc.rev.cfi.rejoin	null	null	RoP.052 / UPC.RoP.52.p1	UPCRoP.052.p1

Note on cascade vs proceeding-tree drift on R.220.3 anchoring is in docs/audit-upc-rop-deadlines-2026-05-08.md §5.4b — unchanged here.

4.2 UPC RoP citation drift on Rule 49.1 format (1 still live)

Rule	Live rule_code	Should be
upc.rev.cfi.defence	RoP.49.1	RoP.049.1 (canonical zero-padded form used by all other UPC rules)

4.3 DPMA — 3 mis-attributed citations

Rule	Live citation	Problem	Verified
dpma.opp.dpma.erwiderung	§ 59 PatG / DE.PatG.59.3	§59(3) PatG addresses Anhörung, not a 4-month response period. No statutory Erwiderungsfrist exists in §59. The 4-month figure is DPMA-internal practice.	WebFetch gesetze-im-internet.de/patg/__59.html 2026-05-25
dpma.appeal.bpatg.begruendung	§ 75 PatG / DE.PatG.75.1	§75 PatG is exclusively about aufschiebende Wirkung (suspensive effect). It does not establish any Begründungsfrist. No fixed Begründungsfrist for BPatG-Beschwerde exists in PatG §§73-80 — it is set by the BPatG in the individual case.	WebFetch gesetze-im-internet.de/patg/__75.html + §73 2026-05-25
dpma.appeal.bpatg.beschwerde	§ 73 PatG / DE.PatG.73.2	§73 contains the 1-month deadline correctly; the .2 subscript however refers to §73(2) which is about Beschwerdebefugnis — the Frist is in §73(2) S.4 ("Die Beschwerdefrist beträgt einen Monat …"). Citation should be DE.PatG.73.2.s4 or simply DE.PatG.73.2. Borderline — flag, not a hard bug.	gesetze-im-internet.de

4.4 DE patent / civil — 4 mis-attributed citations

Rule	Live citation	Problem	Verified
de.null.bpatg.erwidg	§ 82 PatG / DE.PatG.82.1	§82(1) is the 1-month Erklärungsfrist ("sich darüber zu erklären"); the 2-month full Klageerwiderung is in §82(3). Citation should be DE.PatG.82.3. Duration (2 months) is correct.	WebFetch §82 2026-05-25
de.null.bpatg.replik_klaeger	§ 83 PatG / DE.PatG.83.2	§83(2) is about the Hinweisbeschluss form; the Replik / Schriftsatz windows fall under §83(2) S.3 (Reaktion auf Hinweis). Citation OK at section level but ambiguous. Borderline — flag, not a hard bug.	gesetze-im-internet.de
de.null.bgh.begruendung	§ 111 PatG / DE.PatG.111.1	§111 PatG defines the Grounds of Berufung (Verletzung des Bundesrechts), not a Begründungsfrist. The 3-month figure is supplied via §117 PatG → ZPO §520(2). Citation should be DE.ZPO.520.2 (the actual time-limit source).	WebFetch §111 2026-05-25
de.null.bgh.erwiderung	§ 111 PatG / DE.PatG.111.3	§111 has no Erwiderungsfrist clause. The actual Erwiderungsfrist for BGH-Nichtigkeitsberufung is set by the court per §117 PatG → ZPO §521(2) (court-discretionary). Duration (2 months) is approximate — typical court-set period is 2 months but it's not fixed. Should be modelled as court-set.	WebFetch §111 + ZPO §521 2026-05-25

4.5 EPA — 1 mis-attributed citation

Rule	Live citation	Problem
epa.opp.opd.erwidg	R. 79(1) EPÜ / EU.EPC-R.79.1	Duration (4 months) is correct as the typical EPO-set period under the 2016 streamlined-opposition guidelines, but R.79(1) does not specify a fixed period — the Opposition Division sets it. The 4 months is administrative practice (EPO Guidelines D-IV, 5.2). Should be modelled as court-set with 4 months as the default-display value.

---

§5. Findings — Wrong period (statute says X, paliad says Y)

Rule	Live period	Statutory period	Source	Freq
upc.rev.cfi.defence	3 months	2 months	RoP.049.1: "The defendant shall lodge a Defence to revocation within two months of service of the Statement for revocation." — verified verbatim from UPCRoP.049.1 (youpc DB). Flagged 2026-05-08; still live.	★★★
upc.rev.cfi.rejoin	2 months	1 month	RoP.052: "Within one month of the service of the Reply the defendant may lodge a Rejoinder to the Reply to the Defence to revocation" — verified verbatim from UPCRoP.052.p1. Flagged 2026-05-08; still live.	★★★
upc.apl.merits.response	2 months	3 months	RoP.235.1: "Within three months of service of the Statement of grounds of appeal pursuant to Rule 224.2(a), any other party … may lodge a Statement of response" — verified verbatim from UPCRoP.235.1. New finding — May 8 audit recorded the duration as 3 months but the live row has always been 2 (migration 012:153 originally seeded 2).	★★★
upc.pi.cfi.response	0 / "court-set" (is_court_set=false, duration=0, parent_id=NULL)	court-set, judge-discretion under R.211.2	RoP.211.2 — judge sets the inter-partes hearing date. Modelling is half-broken: duration=0 with parent_id=NULL makes the calculator treat this as a root anchor rather than a court-set placeholder. Should set is_court_set=true and chain parent_id=app.	★★

(All other rules audited have correct durations.)

---

§6. Findings — Wrong party

No clear party mis-assignments found in the live data. Two notes worth recording, not bugs:

• upc.inf.cfi.app_to_amend carries primary_party='claimant'. The defendant in an INF case is the alleged infringer; the patent proprietor (=claimant) is who would file an Application to Amend the patent. Correct. Listed here only because R.30 reads "the defendant" in some summaries — those refer to the claimant of the CCR (= defendant of the INF), which loops back to the same person who is the INF-claimant / patent-proprietor.
• dpma.opp.dpma.erwiderung carries primary_party='defendant'. In an EPA-style opposition, the patent proprietor is the "defendant" of the opposition. Consistent with EPA convention. Correct.

---

§7. Findings — Wrong sequencing / anchoring

7.1 de.inf.lg.beruf_begr chains parent = berufung, should anchor on urteil directly

Live	Per ZPO §520(2)
de.inf.lg.beruf_begr.parent_id = de.inf.lg.berufung, duration = 2 months → effective end = trigger + 1mo (Berufung) + 2mo = 3 months after Urteil service	"Die Frist für die Berufungsbegründung beträgt zwei Monate. Sie beginnt mit der Zustellung des in vollständiger Form abgefassten Urteils" → 2 months after Urteil service

Verified verbatim via WebFetch gesetze-im-internet.de/zpo/__520.html 2026-05-25.

The companion de.inf.olg.begruendung is correct — parent = urteil_lg, 2mo, so end = Urteil + 2mo. Same statute, two paliad rules, two different anchorings: this is a real bug in de.inf.lg.

7.2 de.inf.lg.replik and de.inf.lg.duplik have parent_id = NULL

This is the bug head flagged. Live data:

submission_code	name	duration	parent_id	sequence_order
de.inf.lg.klage	Klageerhebung	0 mo	NULL	0
de.inf.lg.anzeige	Anzeige Verteidigungsbereitschaft	2 wk	de.inf.lg.klage	10
de.inf.lg.erwidg	Klageerwiderung	6 wk	de.inf.lg.klage (court-set=true post mig 095)	20
de.inf.lg.replik	Replik	4 wk	NULL	30
de.inf.lg.duplik	Duplik	4 wk	NULL	40
de.inf.lg.termin	Haupttermin	0 mo	NULL (court-set)	50
de.inf.lg.urteil	Urteil	0 mo	NULL (court-set)	60
de.inf.lg.berufung	Berufungsfrist	1 mo	NULL	70
de.inf.lg.beruf_begr	Berufungsbegründung	2 mo	de.inf.lg.berufung	80

With parent_id = NULL the calculator anchors Replik on the triggerDate (= Klageerhebung), and same for Duplik. So both render "4 Wochen ab Klageerhebung" — i.e. before the Klageerwiderung is even due. Correct chain should be:

• replik.parent_id = de.inf.lg.erwidg, with is_court_set = true (richterliche Frist § 276(1) S.2 / § 283 ZPO — typ. 4 weeks default)
• duplik.parent_id = de.inf.lg.replik, same shape

Both rules lack legal_source and rule_code, which is consistent with them being court-set Schriftsatzfristen (no statutory clamp). Recommendation in §10.

7.3 upc.apl.merits.grounds has parent_id = NULL

This anchors Grounds on the user-supplied trigger date (=Entscheidung service). Correct behaviour per RoP.224.2.a: "within four months of service of a decision referred to in Rule 220.1(a) and (b)".

If parent_id were set to upc.apl.merits.notice (as the May 8 audit hypothesised), the chain would compound (1-day notice + 4mo grounds = ~4mo + 1 day), accidentally landing near the right end-date for the common case but wrong by up to 2 months in the edge case (when notice is filed early). No fix needed; document the intent. (This is the change the May 8 audit recommended; it was applied in mig 097 or earlier.)

7.4 DPMA Pathway-A anchors are partially modelled

• dpma.appeal.bgh.begruendung chains parent = rechtsbeschwerde (1mo + 1mo = 2mo from BPatG-Entscheidung). Per PatG §102 the Rechtsbeschwerdebegründungsfrist is 1 month from filing of the Rechtsbeschwerde — correct.
• dpma.appeal.bpatg.begruendung chains parent = beschwerde (1mo + 1mo = 2mo from DPMA-Entscheidung). No statutory basis for the 1-month figure (see §4.3). Should be court-set.

7.5 EPA grant timeline — epa.grant.exa.r71_3 and .approval have parent_id = NULL

Live:

Rule	Duration	parent_id	Issue
epa.grant.exa.r71_3	0 mo	NULL	Should chain on exam_req (after examination request is granted, EPO issues R.71(3) communication). NULL parent + 0 duration = root anchor at trigger date — works only if user enters the R.71(3) date as trigger; doesn't compose with the rest of the tree.
epa.grant.exa.approval	4 mo	NULL	Per R.71(3) approval period: 4 months from notification. Anchor should be r71_3, not NULL. As-is, "Zustimmung + Übersetzung" appears as a free-standing 4-mo-from-trigger row that has nothing to do with the rest of the timeline.

7.6 Summary

#	Rule	Bug
1	de.inf.lg.beruf_begr	parent should be NULL (anchored on Urteil-trigger) not berufung — off by 1 month, ★★★
2	de.inf.lg.replik	parent should be erwidg not NULL, ★★★
3	de.inf.lg.duplik	parent should be replik not NULL, ★★★
4	dpma.appeal.bpatg.begruendung	should be court-set; current 1-month period has no statutory basis, ★★
5	dpma.appeal.bpatg.beschwerde parent is entscheidung — OK, just a citation issue (§4.3)	(citation only)
6	epa.grant.exa.r71_3 parent	should chain on exam_req, ★
7	epa.grant.exa.approval parent	should chain on r71_3, ★
8	upc.pi.cfi.response	court-set placeholder with parent_id=NULL and is_court_set=false — should chain on app with is_court_set=true, ★★

---

§8. Findings — Duplicates

No genuine duplicates. The closest cases:

• upc.inf.cfi.reply + upc.inf.cfi.def_to_ccr both fire at 2mo after sod under with_ccr. They cover different actions (Reply to SoD vs. Defence to CCR + Reply to SoD combined) per RoP.029.a vs .b. Not a duplicate — distinct rule codes.
• upc.rev.cfi.reply (2mo, no rule_code) and the older REV.rev_reply on the archived litigation type — the archived type is hidden (pt.is_active = false) so this isn't a duplicate the user sees. Recommendation in §10 to drop the archived corpus once mig 093's audit window closes.
• epa.opp.boa.r106 (Art. 112a review) appears only on epa.opp.boa, not on epa.opp.opd — correct, since Art. 112a review is only available against a Boards-of-Appeal decision.

---

§9. Ambiguities — decisions m needs to make

These are not bugs the coder can fix. They are judgement calls about how to model the law.

9.1 Court-set vs fixed-period for richterliche Fristen

The cleanest source-of-truth for these is "no statutory duration — court sets the period in the individual case." Modelling them as a fixed period with a wrong citation is the bug pattern we keep finding:

• dpma.opp.dpma.erwiderung (4 mo) — DPMA practice, not §59 PatG.
• dpma.appeal.bpatg.begruendung (1 mo) — no statutory basis.
• de.inf.olg.erwiderung (1 mo, §521(2)) — §521(2) is explicitly discretionary ("Der Vorsitzende oder das Berufungsgericht kann der Gegenpartei eine Frist … bestimmen"). Verified WebFetch gesetze-im-internet.de/zpo/__521.html 2026-05-25.
• de.null.bgh.erwiderung (2 mo, "§111(3) PatG") — court-set per §117 PatG → ZPO §521(2).
• de.null.bpatg.duplik (1 mo, §83 PatG) — court-set; the 1-month default is BPatG practice.
• de.inf.lg.replik, .duplik (4 wk each) — court-set per §283 / §296a ZPO + §276(1) S.2.
• epa.opp.opd.erwidg (4 mo, "R.79(1)") — EPO-set per Guidelines.

Question (Q1): Should paliad continue to display these with a default duration but flag them as "richterliche Frist — vom Gericht festgesetzt", OR should they all flip to is_court_set=true, duration=0 and force the user to enter the actual court-set date?

Head's 2026-05-25 13:13 signal confirms: m's preference is that "Frist vom Gericht bestimmt" be flagged as needing case-by-case anchoring, not displayed as a fixed period. So default answer = flip to is_court_set=true and keep the typical period as the Default display value (the calculator already supports this since the mig 095 / de.inf.lg.erwidg patch). But the trade-off is a UX regression: most users will not enter the actual court-set date and the timeline will then show "vom Gericht bestimmt" everywhere.

9.2 R.198 / R.213 "31 days OR 20 working days, whichever is longer"

Two RoP rules need a primitive paliad doesn't have:

• A working_days duration unit (counts business-day arithmetic via the holiday service).
• A combine = 'max' operator that compares two durations and picks the later end-date.

Question (Q2): Implement the primitive (~120 LoC migration + ~80 LoC Go), or document both rules as "manual calculation required, see RoP" in the UI? Real R.198 / R.213 cases are rare (saisie + PI). The May 8 audit suggested deferring; pauli's 2026-05-13 audit §7.1 made the case for adding combine_op as part of a broader Pipeline A/C merge.

9.3 R.245.2 rehearing "whichever is later" trigger

R.245.2.a/b: deadline 2 months from final decision OR from defect discovery, whichever is later. Plus outer cap 12 months. Needs:

• Multi-anchor trigger event (user supplies 2 dates).
• combine = 'max' between anchors.
• Outer-cap arithmetic (separate concept from duration).

Question (Q3): Defer (specialist, vanishingly rare) or build the primitives?

9.4 EPC Art. 112a review — outer cap

Same shape as R.245.2: 2 months from defect discovery, outer cap 12 months from decision. epa.opp.boa.r106 models the 2-month period but not the cap.

9.5 PatG §123 Wiedereinsetzung calendar arithmetic

Cascade card (slug wiedereinsetzung) exists. The 2mo / 1-year arithmetic anchors on the missed deadline, not on a forward-looking event. paliad's paliad.deadline_rules schema has no natural shape for this — it would need either a special-case Go helper, or a "backward-from-missed-deadline" mode that no rule today uses.

Question (Q4): Worth modelling? The cascade card already routes the user to the concept; computing the calendar deadline is an incremental win.

9.6 ZPO §339 Versäumnisurteil-Einspruch

Cascade card orphan. 2 weeks from service of the default judgment. Trivial to add as a de.inf.lg.einspruch_vu rule (court-decision anchor + 2wk fixed). Question (Q5): Add as a child of de.inf.lg.urteil (with condition_expr={"flag":"with_vu"}), or as a separate proceeding de.inf.lg.vu?

9.7 Litigation-vs-fristenrechner archived corpus

The 40 rules on _archived_litigation (mig 093 retirement holding pen) still occupy the rule table. They're invisible to all UIs.

Question (Q6): Drop them now (data clean-up), or keep until the mig 093 audit window closes formally?

9.8 R.79(2) further-party observations period

EPC R.79(2) creates a separate notification window for additional opponents. paliad's epa.opp.opd.r79_further is modelled as duration=0, is_bilateral=true. Question (Q7): Is this even worth keeping? Real workflow: EPO sets a separate period in each intervention case. Hard to template.

9.9 R.116(1) EPC oral-proceedings cut-off

paliad has it as duration=0, parent_id=entsch (epa.opp.opd.r116) / parent_id=oral (epa.opp.boa.r116). R.116(1) actually says the EPO sets a "final date for making written submissions" when issuing the summons. So it's a court-set period, not zero-duration. Question (Q8): flip to is_court_set=true like the §276(1) ZPO fix in mig 095?

9.10 R.131.2 indication of damages period

paliad models upc.dmgs.cfi.app as a 0-duration root anchor (court sets when the damages-determination phase opens, per R.131.2). This is correct shape but means the entire damages tree is unanchored until the user provides the trigger date manually.

Question (Q9): Wire is_spawn from upc.inf.cfi.decision to upc.dmgs.cfi.app (parallel to the mig-095 appeal-spawn)?

9.11 PatG §17 GebrMG / §18 GebrMG

No GebrMG-rooted proceeding_type exists in paliad. Head confirmed out-of-scope for this audit. Question (Q10): Add a de.gm.lg proceeding for GebrMG-Löschungsverfahren if HLC sees them?

9.12 Proceeding-tree vs cascade parity

paliad has 9 cascade-only concepts with rule_count = 0 (the orphans listed in audit-fristen-logic-2026-05-13.md §3.4). The audit-fristen audit covers this; restating here only to note that the parity gap is the largest single source of "the cascade card promises a calculation but doesn't deliver one."

Question (Q11): Same as the audit-fristen Q8 — priority order for the 9 orphan concepts? My ranking: wiedereinsetzung > schriftsatznachreichung > versäumnisurteil-einspruch > weiterbehandlung > rest.

9.13 R.220.3 anchor

See audit-upc-rop-deadlines-2026-05-08.md §5.4b. paliad anchors upc.apl.order.discretion on the original order (order), but the 15-day clock per RoP.220.3 runs from the refusal-of-leave date (or day-15 fall-back). Off by up to 15 days in the edge case. Question (Q12): add an explicit app_ord.refusal court-set intermediate node?

9.14 EP_GRANT publish date — priority vs filing

epa.grant.exa.publish correctly has anchor_alt='priority_date'. This was open in the May 8 audit and is now closed. No question — listed to confirm.

9.15 Cross-proceeding spawn execution

mig 095 added two is_spawn=true rules (inf.appeal_spawn, rev.appeal_spawn → upc.apl.merits). The May 13 audit §1.6 + §6.8 noted spawn execution is half-wired in projection_service.go. Question (Q13): wire end-to-end now (so the spawned appeal timeline appears in SmartTimeline), or accept the half-wired state?

---

§10. Recommended fixes (prioritised)

Tier 0 — hard duration / sequencing / anchor bugs (ship first)

#	Rule	Fix	Reason / source	Freq
T0.1	upc.rev.cfi.defence	duration_value = 2 (was 3), rule_code = 'RoP.049.1', legal_source = 'UPC.RoP.49.1'	§5 — every UPC_REV tracked in paliad today computes Defence at wrong month for the last ~3 months	★★★
T0.2	upc.rev.cfi.rejoin	duration_value = 1 (was 2), rule_code = 'RoP.052', legal_source = 'UPC.RoP.52.p1'	§5 — same as T0.1	★★★
T0.3	upc.apl.merits.response	duration_value = 3 (was 2), rule_code = 'RoP.235.1', legal_source = 'UPC.RoP.235.1'	§5 — every main-track appellate respondent	★★★
T0.4	de.inf.lg.beruf_begr	parent_id = NULL (was de.inf.lg.berufung) — runs 2 months from triggerDate (Urteil-service) per ZPO §520(2)	§7.1 — every DE-LG-Verletzung appeal	★★★
T0.5	de.inf.lg.replik	parent_id = de.inf.lg.erwidg, is_court_set = true (richterliche Frist § 276(1) S.2 / § 283 ZPO), keep 4-week default	§7.2 — bug head flagged	★★★
T0.6	de.inf.lg.duplik	parent_id = de.inf.lg.replik, is_court_set = true	§7.2	★★★
T0.7	upc.rev.cfi.reply	rule_code = 'RoP.051', legal_source = 'UPC.RoP.51.p1' (duration 2mo unchanged)	§4.1	★★★
T0.8	upc.rev.cfi.rejoin (citation only)	covered in T0.2	—	—
T0.9	upc.apl.merits.notice	rule_code = 'RoP.224.1.a', legal_source = 'UPC.RoP.224.1.a' (duration unchanged)	§4.1	★★
T0.10	upc.apl.merits.grounds	rule_code = 'RoP.224.2.a', legal_source = 'UPC.RoP.224.2.a' (duration unchanged)	§4.1	★★
T0.11	upc.rev.cfi.defence rule_code zero-pad	covered in T0.1	—	—
T0.12	dpma.opp.dpma.erwiderung	flip to is_court_set = true, keep 4-month default-display value, drop the misleading DE.PatG.59.3 citation (or replace with "DPMA-Richtlinien D-IV 5.2")	§4.3 + §9.1	★★
T0.13	dpma.appeal.bpatg.begruendung	flip to is_court_set = true, drop the DE.PatG.75.1 citation, keep 1-month default	§4.3 + §9.1	★★
T0.14	de.null.bpatg.erwidg	citation DE.PatG.82.3 (was 82.1); duration (2mo) correct	§4.4	★★
T0.15	de.null.bgh.begruendung	citation DE.ZPO.520.2 via PatG §117 (was DE.PatG.111.1); duration (3mo) correct	§4.4	★★
T0.16	de.null.bgh.erwiderung	flip to is_court_set = true; citation DE.ZPO.521.2 via PatG §117 (was DE.PatG.111.3); duration (2mo) becomes default-display	§4.4 + §9.1	★★
T0.17	epa.opp.opd.erwidg	flip to is_court_set = true, keep 4-month default	§4.5 + §9.1	★★

16 hard fixes. All within the existing schema (no new columns). Each is a single-row UPDATE plus an audit-log entry.

Tier 1 — high-value missing rules (★★ / ★★★)

#	Rule	Add	Freq
T1.1	upc.inf.cfi.cmo_review	15 days from CMO service (R.333.2)	★★
T1.2	upc.inf.cfi.confidentiality_response	14 days from opp. confidentiality app (R.262.2)	★★
T1.3	upc.apl.order.grounds_orders	15 days from order service (R.224.2(b))	★★
T1.4	upc.apl.order.response_orders	15 days from grounds service (R.235.2)	★★
T1.5	upc.inf.cfi.cons_orders	2 months from validity decision (R.118.4)	★★
T1.6	upc.inf.cfi.rectification	1 month from decision (R.353)	★
T1.7	upc.pi.cfi.deficiency	14 days from PI deficiency notification (R.207.6.a)	★★
T1.8	upc.pi.cfi.merits_start	31d OR 20wd from PI grant (R.213) — blocked on Q2	★★
T1.9	upc.inf.cfi.translation_request	1 month before oral hearing (R.109.1)	★★
T1.10	upc.inf.cfi.interpreter_cost	2 weeks before oral hearing (R.109.4)	★★
T1.11	upc.inf.cfi.translations_lodge	2 weeks after summons (R.109.5)	★★
T1.12	upc.pi.cfi.response re-anchor	court-set, parent=app (currently a broken root)	★★

12 rule-adds. T1.9/.10 are the only timing='before' rules in the entire UPC corpus; schema already supports before but no rule populates it. Verify the backward-snap-to-working-day logic in internal/services/deadline_calculator.go before merging (2026-04-30 audit §5.4 raised the concern).

Tier 2 — broader coverage (★ specialist + Wiedereinsetzung family)

#	Rule	Add	Notes
T2.1	de.inf.lg.einspruch_vu	2 weeks from service of Versäumnisurteil (ZPO §339)	Q5 — proceeding shape decision
T2.2	upc.inf.cfi.wiedereinsetzung	2 mo / 1-year-cap from Wegfall des Hindernisses (R.320)	Q4 — needs special arithmetic
T2.3	de.inf.lg.wiedereinsetzung	2 mo / 1-year-cap (PatG §123 / ZPO §233 ff.)	Q4
T2.4	epa.grant.exa.weiterbehandlung	2 mo from loss-of-rights notification (EPC R.135)	—
T2.5	upc.inf.cfi.prelim_reply	14 days from PO service (R.20.2)	Companion to R.19 (mig 095 added it)
T2.6	upc.apl.order.discretion_anchor	add explicit refusal intermediate node so R.220.3 anchors correctly (Q12)
T2.7	upc.dmgs.cfi.app spawn	is_spawn=true from upc.inf.cfi.decision (Q9)
T2.8	upc.disc.cfi.app spawn	same shape as T2.7
T2.9	epa.grant.exa.r71_3 re-anchor	parent = exam_req (§7.5)
T2.10	epa.grant.exa.approval re-anchor	parent = r71_3 (§7.5)
T2.11	upc.inf.cfi.appeal_spawn cross-proc wiring	finish the half-wired spawn execution (Q13)

Tier 3 — tooling primitives (block multiple rules)

#	Primitive	Blocks	Notes
T3.1	duration_unit = 'working_days'	R.198, R.213	Schema already accepts the string; add to calculator + UI
T3.2	combine_op = 'max'	R.198, R.213, R.245.2	Column already exists per pauli's 2026-05-13 audit
T3.3	Multi-anchor "whichever later" trigger	R.245.2.a/b	UI + service work
T3.4	Outer-cap modelling (outer_cap_value + outer_cap_unit)	R.245.2 (12mo), R.320 (12mo), EPC Art.112a(4) (12mo)	Schema add
T3.5	"Before"-mode backward snap to working day	R.109.1, R.109.4	Calculator change (audit-fristenrechner-completeness-2026-04-30.md §5.4)
T3.6	Cross-proceeding spawn end-to-end (is_spawn)	T2.7, T2.8, T2.11	Pauli's §6.8

Tier 4 — out-of-scope until separate prioritisation

• DNI family (R.63 / R.67.1 / R.69.1 / R.69.2). Zero published filings 2026-Q1.
• Registry-correction family (R.16.3.a, R.27.2, R.89.2, R.253.2). Most natural in cascade, not proceeding-tree.
• GebrMG (no proceeding_type today).
• R.245 rehearing family (specialist).
• R.155 cost-decision opposition chain (specialist).
• R.144 UPC_DAMAGES tree-end row (cosmetic).
• R.79(2) EPC further-parties period (modelling unclear — Q7).

---

§11. Next-step proposals (suggested fix-task slicing)

The audit identifies 41 distinct actionable items. Below is a suggested decomposition into fix-tasks that can be assigned independently. Sequence reflects "Wave 0 must precede Wave 1" only where there's a real dependency (most slices are independent).

Wave 0 — Tier 0 duration / sequencing / anchor fixes (single fix-task)

Proposed task: t-paliad-264 — Tier 0 deadline-rule corrections (duration, anchor, citation) from t-paliad-263 audit

• 16 row UPDATEs (T0.1–T0.17, deduplicated to 16 distinct rows since T0.8 is covered by T0.2 and T0.11 by T0.1).
• One migration file (~120 LoC SQL).
• All within existing schema. No new columns.
• Idempotent guards on every UPDATE (only fire when the row still has the old value, per the mig 095 convention).
• Adds 16 entries to paliad.deadline_rule_audit (per the mig 079 trigger).
• Verification block: DO $$ … RAISE EXCEPTION … per mig 095.
• Branch: mai/<coder>/t-paliad-264-tier0-deadline-fixes.
• Owner: coder.
• Why first: all 16 affect either calendar correctness (5 hard duration/anchor bugs) or citation correctness (the 11 metadata fixes are what a lawyer would cite-check against). T0.1–T0.6 are user-visible silent wrongs; ship them.

Wave 1 — Tier 1 rule additions (single fix-task)

Proposed task: t-paliad-265 — Tier 1 deadline-rule additions (12 high-frequency rules)

• 11 INSERTs + 1 UPDATE re-anchor (T1.12 upc.pi.cfi.response).
• T1.8 (upc.pi.cfi.merits_start) excluded — blocked on T3.1/T3.2.
• One migration file (~250 LoC SQL).
• Add cascade leaves + concepts where needed (each rule should be reachable from Pathway B too).
• Branch: mai/<coder>/t-paliad-265-tier1-rule-additions.
• Owner: coder. Legal review: m must verify each rule before merge (single round of grilling).

Wave 2 — Q1 court-set audit decision (separate spike)

Proposed task: t-paliad-266 — Decide court-set vs fixed-period modelling for richterliche Fristen (Q1 in t-paliad-263 audit)

• Inventor / pauli reviews §9.1 with m.
• Decision artefact: list of rules to flip vs keep, plus UX guideline for what the timeline displays for is_court_set=true rules.
• Owner: pauli. m signs off.

Wave 3 — Tier 3 tooling primitives (multi-task)

Each Tier 3 row is its own task because each touches schema + service + calculator + UI:

• t-paliad-267 — working_days unit + combine_op='max' (R.198, R.213)
• t-paliad-268 — Outer-cap modelling (R.245.2, R.320, Art.112a)
• t-paliad-269 — Multi-anchor "whichever later" triggers (R.245.2)
• t-paliad-270 — Backward-snap for before-mode rules (R.109.1/.4)
• t-paliad-271 — Cross-proceeding spawn end-to-end execution

Each is foundational for multiple Tier 2 rules; can ship independently.

Wave 4 — Tier 2 specialist rules (multi-task, after their primitives land)

Each Tier 2 row is its own task or batched into 2-3 tasks by topical area:

• t-paliad-272 — Wiedereinsetzung / Weiterbehandlung family (T2.2, T2.3, T2.4) — depends on T3.4 (outer cap).
• t-paliad-273 — UPC follow-on spawns (T2.7, T2.8, T2.11) — depends on T3.6.
• t-paliad-274 — UPC tail rules (T2.5, T2.6, R.353, etc.)
• t-paliad-275 — EPA grant timeline re-anchoring (T2.9, T2.10).

Wave 5 — Concept-layer parity (separate audit)

The 9 orphan concepts (audit-fristen-logic-2026-05-13.md §3.4 + Q11 here) need a parallel audit pass to map cascade → rule. Recommend spinning a t-paliad-276 — Cascade-rule parity audit task once the above land.

Wave 6 — Documentation + retire

• t-paliad-277 — Drop _archived_litigation proceeding_type once mig 093's audit window closes (Q6).
• t-paliad-278 — Document Tier 4 deferrals in docs/feature-roadmap.md`` so the gap-list isn't lost.

---

Appendix A — file references

Live state queried via Supabase MCP, 2026-05-25 14:00–15:00 UTC:

• paliad.proceeding_types — 21 active rows (20 fristenrechner + 1 archived).
• paliad.deadline_rules — 132 active + 40 archived rows (lifecycle_state='published').
• paliad.deadline_rule_audit — diff history.
• data.laws_contents (youpc) — UPC RoP + EPC verbatim text (law_type IN ('UPCRoP','EPC')).

paliad migrations consulted:

• internal/db/migrations/012_fristenrechner_rules.up.sql — original seed.
• internal/db/migrations/043_de_instance_split_proceedings.up.sql — DE_INF_OLG / DE_INF_BGH split.
• internal/db/migrations/052_event_categories_rop_audit.up.sql — first RoP audit fix-pass.
• internal/db/migrations/079_* — paliad.deadline_rule_audit trigger.
• internal/db/migrations/091_drop_legacy_rule_columns.up.sql — cleanup.
• internal/db/migrations/093_retire_litigation_category.up.sql — archived 40 rules.
• internal/db/migrations/095_fristen_gap_fill.up.sql — t-paliad-205 R.19 + R.220.1(a) gap fill.
• internal/db/migrations/096_proceeding_code_rename.up.sql — code rename to <jurisdiction>.<proceeding>.<instance> form.
• internal/db/migrations/097_legal_citation_backfill.up.sql — legal_source / rule_code backfill.
• internal/db/migrations/100_ccr_visible_rule.up.sql — upc.ccr.cfi alias.
• internal/db/migrations/104_einspruch_name_and_ccr_priority.up.sql — Einspruch rename.

Companion audits:

• docs/audit-fristenrechner-completeness-2026-04-30.md — curie / t-paliad-084.
• docs/audit-upc-rop-deadlines-2026-05-08.md — curie / t-paliad-159.
• docs/audit-fristen-logic-2026-05-13.md — pauli / t-paliad-157 (schema audit, ground-truth on column semantics).
• docs/proposals/fristen-gap-fill-2026-05-18.md — m's 0.3 decisions that shipped as mig 095.

Authoritative source URLs (all verified 2026-05-25):

• UPC RoP consolidated 18.05.2023: https://www.unifiedpatentcourt.org/sites/default/files/upc_documents/rop_application_-_consolidated_18_05_2023.pdf
• EPC 17th ed.: https://www.epo.org/en/legal/epc/2020/index.html
• EPC R.71 (and other Implementing Reg Rules): https://www.epo.org/en/legal/epc/2020/r71.html
• PatG: https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/patg/
  • §59 https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/patg/__59.html
  • §73 https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/patg/__73.html
  • §75 https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/patg/__75.html
  • §82 https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/patg/__82.html
  • §110 https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/patg/__110.html
  • §111 https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/patg/__111.html
• ZPO: https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/zpo/
  • §520 https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/zpo/__520.html
  • §521 https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/zpo/__521.html
• GebrMG: https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/gebrmg/

---

Appendix B — coverage tally

Status	Count	Share
present-correct	78	59 %
present-wrong (DURATION)	3	2 %
present-wrong (anchor/sequence)	5	4 %
present-wrong (citation only)	11	8 %
court-set-mismodelled-as-fixed	6	5 %
subtotal: still actionable	25	19 %
missing (statute defines, paliad doesn't)	30	(gap, vs 132 baseline)
n/a (RoP / EPC / PatG section creates no time-limit)	8	6 %
present-correct, no fix needed	(78 above)

Headline figures for m:

• Of the 132 statutory deadlines paliad currently models, 25 carry an actionable bug (19%). Of those, 5 are user-visible calendar-correctness bugs (the 3 duration bugs + the 2 sequencing/anchor bugs head flagged + me). The other 20 are citation drift or court-set mismodelling — fix-them-quietly category.
• An additional 30 statutory deadlines are not modelled at all (the missing list in §3). Of those, ~12 are ★★★ / ★★ frequency (Tier 1 in §10); the remaining ~18 are ★ specialist.
• The 5 duration / sequencing bugs alone are the most important takeaway: every UPC_REV proceeding, every UPC main-track appeal respondent, and every DE-LG-Verletzung timeline tracked in paliad today computes wrong dates.

End of audit. Awaiting m's review of §9 Q1–Q13 + Tier 0 sign-off before fix-tasks (Wave 0) get cut.