m's ask 2026-05-18 18:08: 'the infringement parts (like Replik) should
show above the part for the revocation (Erwiderung Nichtigkeitswider-
klage)'. Three tracks (infringement / revocation / amendment) coexist
on upc.inf.cfi once with_ccr / with_amend are set. They share tied
calendar dates because R.29/R.30/R.32 all key off the SoD or its
descendants. Current sequence_orders (post-mig 100) interleave them
arbitrarily; user sees Erwiderung-zur-CCR before Replik even though
Replik is the infringement-side response to the same triggering event.
**Re-sequencing** keeps the existing soc=0, prelim=5, sod=10 head and
the interim=40 / oral=50 / decision=60 / cost_app=70 / appeal_spawn=80
tail untouched. The 10 reshuffled rules move into a track-aware
arrangement:
10-19 infringement: sod=10, reply=12, rejoin=14
20-29 revocation: ccr=20, def_to_ccr=22, reply_def_ccr=24, rejoin_reply_ccr=26
30-39 amendment: app_to_amend=30, def_to_amend=32, reply_def_amd=34, rejoin_amd=36
Tied-date ordering after the reshuffle:
D+3mo: sod(10), ccr(20) — SoD then its CCR
D+5mo: reply(12), def_to_ccr(22), app_to_amend(30) — inf → rev → amd
D+7mo: reply_def_ccr(24), def_to_amend(32) — rev → amd
D+8mo: rejoin_reply_ccr(26), reply_def_amd(34) — rev → amd
**Two-phase swap** — every reshuffled rule first parks at sequence
1000+number, then jumps to its final value. Prevents transient
sequence-collisions if Postgres evaluates UPDATEs in parallel within
the same statement. Each UPDATE is keyed by submission_code AND the
SOURCE sequence_order, so re-apply is a no-op.
audit_reason set_config at top per mig 099 hotfix pattern.
Renumbered from mig 102 → mig 105 to avoid collision with archimedes
system_audit_log mig 102 (merged between fermi's parked session and
now); follows mig 104 (Einspruch name + CCR priority).
mAi
d127c768f7