paliad/docs/t-paliad-207-followup-scope.md

t-paliad-207 follow-up scope — close-out assessment

Author: fermi (inventor) Date: 2026-05-20 Verdict: (A) DONE — interactive session scope is shipped; remaining tail is filed-or-fileable as discrete issues, not a fresh fermi slice.

---

0. What shipped under t-paliad-207

Six substantive deliveries on mai/fermi/interactive-session, all merged to main as of 2026-05-20 morning:

1. Verfahrensablauf + Fristenrechner polish — jurisdiction prefix on the picked proceeding, trigger-event label derived from the root rule, flag rows lifted to /tools/verfahrensablauf, rule references rendered as youpc.org/laws#… links via new BuildLegalSourceURL, Vorab-Einrede → Einspruch rename (DE i18n).
2. DE proceeding picker — sub-group headers (Verletzungsverfahren / Nichtigkeitsverfahren) + parallel labels (LG (1. Instanz) / OLG (Berufung) / …).
3. mig 099 — drop the with_po flag from the two RoP 19 rules (Einspruch is always-available, not flag-gated).
4. mig 100 — upc.inf.cfi.ccr visible rule (Nichtigkeitswiderklage) so the CCR filing event surfaces when with_ccr is set; later corrected to priority='optional' via mig 101.
5. mig 101 — strip rule-cite brackets from the two Einspruch names + flip the CCR priority informational → optional.
6. mig 102 — track-aware sequence reshuffle on upc.inf.cfi so at any tied date the order is infringement (Replik) → revocation (Erwiderung Nichtigkeitswiderklage) → amendment.
7. Notes toggle — Hinweise anzeigen checkbox in the view-toggle bar; compact ⓘ hover hint when off (default), inline timeline-notes block when on. localStorage shared across both tool pages.

Filed two follow-up issues during the session:

• m/paliad#39 — link DE + EPA + EU rule references to youpc.org/laws (depends on youpc.org ingesting the corpus).
• m/paliad#41 — DE proceedings as one combined timeline per type (LG→OLG→BGH, BPatG→BGH) — corpus + spawn + de-duplication + multi-instance UI.

1. Why (A) DONE

Every concrete thing m surfaced in the session was addressed and merged. The two larger unaddressed asks — combined-timeline behaviour for DE proceedings, and DE/EPA rule-link coverage — are already captured in #39 and #41 with concrete scope notes. Neither belongs as a fermi "next slice" because:

• #41 is a corpus + UI design pass of its own (3 new spawn rules, de-duplication of the existing de.inf.lg.berufung ↔ de.inf.olg.berufung pair, multi-court picker shape, instance markers in the timeline body). That's its own design ticket, not a fermi follow-up.
• #39 is primarily a youpc.org-side ingest task; the paliad-side change is a 5-line switch extension once youpc serves the URLs. Wait for the dependency, then small.

Everything else I surfaced in the read-only audit is either pre-existing (not introduced by this session) or speculative (no user complaint behind it).

2. Optional tail — would file as discrete issues, not a fermi slice

Surfacing these for completeness; none are blocking, and most would be small enough to either roll into the existing tickets or land as one-off polish:

#	Candidate	Size	Already covered?
1	legal_source backfill on 47 unsourced active rules — query: 4 of upc.inf.cfi, 4 of upc.pi.cfi (100% gap), 6 of upc.rev.cfi, others. Pre-condition for #39's links to bite.	Medium — corpus research per rule	Partially: huygens did the broader citation backfill in t-paliad-208 / mig 097. This is the remaining tail.
2	upc.pi.cfi corpus completeness audit — all 4 of its rules lack legal_source; likely also missing the analogous track-of-decision spawn rules to upc.apl.merits.	Small audit, medium fix	No — would be a fresh task.
3	Touch-device fallback for the ⓘ hover hint — title= attribute degrades poorly on phones (no hover, no tap-to-show). Either a click-to-popover variant, or accept the gap.	Tiny	No, but no user complaint yet.
4	R.46 mutatis-mutandis distinction in upc.rev.cfi.prelim description — when mig 101 stripped the (R. 19 i.V.m. R. 46) cite, the legal nuance dropped from the user-visible name. Could be surfaced in the description text where it doesn't crowd the timeline cell.	Tiny (one row update)	No.
5	Save-modal warning on SoD + CCR double-check — with mig 100's new upc.inf.cfi.ccr rule, a user can save both sod and ccr from the same modal and get two paliad.deadlines rows on the same date. Today's pre-uncheck behaviour for optional priority mitigates accidental double-write but doesn't surface the duplication actively.	Small	No.
6	Deferred slices from earlier design docs that touch this surface: t-paliad-179 Slice 2-4 (variant chips, lane view, side-by-side compare on /tools/verfahrensablauf); t-paliad-169 "+ Eintrag" CTA on the SmartTimeline (project-bound) path.	Each a separate slice.	Yes — parked from their original tasks; would be revisited when m prioritises.

None of these warrant a "next fermi slice" right now. They're polish + corpus tail, and best handled as individual issues that m can pick from.

3. Recommendation

Close t-paliad-207. Fire fermi. The remaining tail (items 1–6 above) is appropriate as a small "polish backlog" m can dip into when relevant, but not a coherent unit of work that needs a parked inventor.