Replik and Duplik had parent_id = NULL with a 4-week placeholder
duration, so the projection anchored both off the proceeding's
trigger date (Klageerhebung) - both rows rendered at the same
calendar date AND before Klageerwiderung.
Migration 124 anchors Replik on Klageerwiderung
(de.inf.lg.erwidg) and Duplik on Replik, and marks both
is_court_set = true with legal_source DE.ZPO.273. The 4-week
placeholder duration is retained so the timeline gives a sane
notional date for each row; the lawyer overrides it with "Datum
setzen" once the court issues the actual period.
Each UPDATE is guarded by parent_id IS NULL so a re-apply against
a DB that already carries the fix no-ops cleanly (mig 095
convention). No new audit-log rows on idempotent re-runs.
Slot note: originally landed as 123 in an earlier iteration;
cronus's t-paliad-246 Backup-Mode migration won slot 123 in the
parallel merge race, so this migration shifted to slot 124.
ZPO citations in the migration comment per the t-paliad-264 brief:
- Klageerhebung - section 253 ZPO
- Anzeige Verteidigungsbereitschaft - section 276 Abs. 1 S. 1 ZPO
- Klageerwiderung - section 276 Abs. 1 S. 2 + section 277 ZPO
- Replik / Duplik - vom Gericht bestimmte Frist
(section 273 ZPO Anordnungskompetenz; section 282 ZPO
prozessuale Foerderungspflicht)
Verified ordering for trigger 2026-05-25:
Klage 2026-05-25 Mon
Anzeige 2026-06-08 Mon
Klageerwidg 2026-07-06 Mon
Replik 2026-08-03 Mon
Duplik 2026-08-31 Mon
Each row strictly later than the previous; Replik and Duplik no
longer collide on the same date and no longer precede the
Klageerwiderung.
mAi
8c94dccf83