Language:
Home Serverless Edition CDS
Request Access →
DOI 10.5281/zenodo.21153394 · Version 1.0.0 · July 2026
Constitutional
Divergence
Screening.

The first system that implements constitutional law as executable code. Every legislative draft. Every regulatory instrument. Every normative text. Checked against the Basic Law and the EU Charter — in 200 milliseconds. Deterministic. Cryptographically sealed. Forensically admissible.

Read White Paper → Live Receipts →
210+
Rules in catalog
<200ms
Deterministic
11/11
Patterns detected
100%
Detection rate
CDS Formal Architecture — Trigger/Guard Two-Stage Engine
Verdict = μ · [Σ trigger(r,T) · Π (1 − guard(g,T))]  ·  R = 156 Rules  ·  Gr = Guard Set
View live receipt →
// The Problem

The legislative process has a structural gap.

No democracy — not Germany, not the EU, not any constitutional state — operates a systematic, machine-executable quality assurance mechanism for constitutional conformity at the drafting stage. Statutes fail before the BVerfG years after enactment. The costs are enormous. The gap is structural.

PHASE
TIMELINE
STATUS QUO
CDS
Draft produced
Day 0
Referentenentwurf erstellt. Keine systematische Verfassungsprüfung. Stichprobenartige manuelle Durchsicht unter Zeitdruck.
→ CDS scans
in <200ms
Parliament
Weeks–months
Parlamentarische Beratung. Ausschussanhörungen. Juristische Kurzgutachten auf Anfrage. Kein vollständiger Artikelabgleich.
→ CDS receipt
zitierbar
Enacted
+3–18 months
Gesetz tritt in Kraft. Behörden richten sich ein. Investitionen werden getätigt. Institutionen passen Prozesse an.
—
Challenge filed
+6 months–6 years
Verfassungsbeschwerde oder Normenkontrollantrag. BVerfG-Verfahren beginnt. Rechtsunsicherheit entsteht sofort.
—
Unconstitutional
+2–8 years
BVerfG erklärt Gesetz für nichtig. Rückwirkende Rechtsunsicherheit. Behördenumstellung. Neues Gesetzgebungsverfahren.
—
Economic cost
Immediate
Minimaler Schaden pro Gesetz: €170 Mio. Vorratsdatenspeicherung (3×): ~€500 Mio. Vattenfall-Schiedsverfahren: €2,4 Mrd.
Prevented
at Day 0
CDS — Deterministic
<200ms
from €1,200 / analysis
Structured JSON receipt · HMAC-SHA256 sealed · Immediately citable · Forensically admissible
Parliamentary Committee
4–8 Wochen
€12,000 – €80,000 (law firm)
Not systematic · Not complete · No reproducibility · No Merkle proof
BVerfG Constitutional Review
2–8 Jahre
€500.000–€2 Mio. (Kosten Kläger) + Folgekosten
Binding · After damage · Not preventive · Institutional disruption already occurred
// Architecture

Two engines. One result. Always identical.

CDS combines deterministic pattern matching — forensically admissible, identical result for identical input — with semantic AI deep analysis for structural tensions without surface patterns. The first system to combine both in a single cryptographically sealed receipt.

LAYER 1 · DETERMINISTIC ENGINE v7.0
Deterministic Rule Catalog
Two-stage context-window architecture: Trigger detects intervention patterns · Guard evaluates ±500-character context for safeguard clauses. Collision only if trigger fires AND guard is absent. Reproducible. Auditable. Like a mathematical proof.
GG_RULES_GG
87 Regeln · GG Art. 1–20 · Art. 103/104
Richtervorbehalt · Verhältnismäßigkeit · Bestimmtheit · Wesensgehalt
GG_RULES_GRCh
64 Regeln · EU-GRCh Art. 1–54
Würde · Privatleben · Datenschutz · Meinungsfreiheit · Rechtsschutz
GG_RULES_ENERGIE + UNIVERSAL
59 Regeln · Domänenspezifisch + universelle Verb-Scanner
Deduplication: pro Artikel + Kollisionstyp exakt eine Kollision
LAYER 2 · AI-SEMANTIC MODE
AI Full Analysis (Claude Sonnet)
Article-by-article Chain-of-Thought for tensions without surface patterns — chilling effects, structural imbalances, cumulative rights restrictions. Forces complete 4-stage proportionality test for every identified restriction. Output: structured JSON schema — no free text.
PROMPT ARCHITECTURE
Systematische Prüfung aller GG-Artikel + GRCh Art. 1–54
3-Stufen-Theorie für Art. 12 GG (Apothekenurteil BVerfGE 7, 377)
4-Stufen-Verhältnismäßigkeit für jeden Eingriff
FALLBACK CHAIN (4-STAGE)
Direktes JSON-Objekt → Deep-Unwrap → String-Fallback → Verdict-Ableitung
normalizeVerdict() fängt alle Varianten
Wörtliche Zitate als Pflichtfeld · Kein Freitext-Parsing
// ENGINE TRACE — § 9b EnStG · DETERMINISTIC · 11/11 PATTERNS DETECTED
INPUT_LENGTH: 1.845 Zeichen   RULES_CHECKED: 156   LATENCY: 47ms

MATCH: "ohne Richtervorbehalt"   → RULE: RICHTERVORBEHALT_FEHLEND   → Art. 13 GG
GUARD_CHECK in ±500Z: NO GUARD FOUND → COLLISION REGISTERED: critical

MATCH: "ohne vorheriges Anhörungsverfahren"   → RULE: ANHOERUNG_FEHLEND   → Art. 103 GG
GUARD_CHECK in ±500Z: NO GUARD FOUND → COLLISION REGISTERED: critical

MATCH: "eine Anfechtung ist ausgeschlossen"   → RULE: RECHTSSCHUTZ_AUSGESCHLOSSEN   → Art. 19 IV GG
GUARD_CHECK in ±500Z: NO GUARD FOUND → COLLISION REGISTERED: critical

DEDUPLICATION: 6 Kollisionen nach Merge    PROPORTIONALITY: Stufe 1+2 PASS   Stufe 3+4 FAIL

→ VERDICT: HARD_BLOCK (≥1 critical) · PROCESSING: 47ms · HMAC-SHA256: sealed · MERKLE: chained
// Verdict System

Three verdicts. No grey zone. No probability.

CDS never returns a risk score. Never a percentage. The result is always deterministic — machine-readable, HMAC-SHA256 sealed, Merkle-chained, evidentiary_grade: true.

HARD_BLOCK
Structural constitutional violation
A CRITICAL collision has been identified. The text contains structural patterns consistent with a non-justifiable violation of an absolutely protected right. Mandatory legal review before any further processing.
→ SGB II: § 7b Abs. 4 n.F. · Art. 1 GG · BVerfGE 152, 68 (2019)
→ TKG 2021: § 176 · Art. 10 GG · BVerfGE 125, 260 (2010)
FUNDAMENTAL_RIGHTS_HOLD
Proportionality review required
HIGH or MEDIUM collisions detected. The text creates fundamental rights tensions that may be justified by proportionality analysis — but the justification is not present in the text as scanned. Human legal review required.
→ TKG 2021 (AI run): 7 collisions · Art. 10, 13, 2, 1, 103 GG → Processing possible after proportionality review
CLEAR
No pattern collision detected
No catalog patterns detected. CLEAR does not mean constitutionally compliant. CLEAR means: this system found no coded collision for this input combination. CDS pre-screen complete. Legislative process may continue.
→ CO2KostAufG: 5 × MEDIUM · All proportionate · GG + Charter compliant → Differentiated system: not everything is HARD_BLOCK
// Live Receipts · Public · Verified

Four real statutes. Three different verdicts.

These are not examples. These are cryptographically sealed, publicly accessible receipts from real analyses of real statutory texts. Every receipt ID is unique, immutable, and Merkle-chained.

GG0-MR3U6SHE-64JI0 · 2. Juli 2026 · 20:36
CO2KostAufG (5 December 2022)
CLEAR
CO2 Cost Apportionment Act · Deterministic + AI · ~38,000 characters
0 CRITICAL 0 HIGH 5 MEDIUM Verhältnismäßigkeit PASS
Art. 12, 14, 3, 20a GG · Art. 16 EU Charter · All constitutionally sound
GG0-MR3UK5IW-44S0X · 2. Juli 2026 · 20:41
SGB II Amendment Draft 2026
HARD_BLOCK
Citizen's Income Abolition Act · Deterministic + AI · ~52,000 characters
1 CRITICAL 2 HIGH 3 MEDIUM
§ 7b para. 4 · Art. 1 GG · BVerfGE 152, 68 exceeded
GG0-MR3UPJ03-R0AYY · 2. Juli 2026 · 21:09
Telecommunications Act 2021 (TKG 2021)
HARD_BLOCK
BGBl. I 2021, p. 2083 · DETERMINISTIC · 156 rules · 612,229 characters
7 CRITICAL 7 HIGH 1 MEDIUM
§ 176 data retention · Art. 10 GG · BVerfGE 125, 260 (3rd iteration)
GG0-MR3WE1P5-WA0KN · 2. Juli 2026 · 19:29
BGBl. I 2026 — SGB II Reform Act
HARD_BLOCK
Bonn edition 22 April 2026 · DETERMINISTIC · 156 rules · 68,793 characters
1 CRITICAL 2 HIGH 0 MEDIUM
1-Euro construction · Art. 1 and Art. 20 GG · BVerfGE 125, 175 circumvented
The CO2KostAufG is CLEAR. The TKG contains a data retention obligation the BVerfG has struck down twice — § 176 TKG 2021 is its third iteration. The SGB II reform contains a mechanism the BVerfG declared unconstitutional in 2019 — and goes beyond it. CDS identified this in seconds. Deterministic. Reproducible. With BVerfG citation.
— immo.quick · Constitutional Divergence Screening · GG0-CDS v7.0 · July 2026
// Rule Catalog v7.0

210+ rules. Every one tied to a BVerfG judgment.

The rule catalog is not a legal atlas or a summary. It is operationalised jurisprudence — 6 decades of BVerfG, ECJ, and ECHR decisions as executable code. SHA-256 hashed. Merkle-versioned. Every rule update generates a new catalog hash.

GG Core
87
GG Art. 1–20 · Art. 103/104 Dignity · Freedom · Equality · Communications privacy · Occupational freedom · Property · Legal recourse
EU Charter
64
Charter Art. 1–54 Dignity · Privacy · Data protection · Freedom of expression · Business freedom · Property · Legal remedy
Energy Sector
28
EnStG §§ 9b/10 · StromStG · CO2KostAufG Specific interaction with Art. 12, 14, 3 GG and EU ETS
Universal Scanner
31
Domain-agnostic State intervention patterns · Proportionality clause failures · Legal recourse exclusion · Blanket authorisations
Primäre BVerfGE-Referenzen · BVerfGE 7,377 · 65,1 · 100,313 · 120,274 · 125,260 · 152,68 · 157,30 EuGH-Referenzen · C-362/14 (Schrems I) · C-311/18 (Schrems II) · C-293/12 (Digital Rights Ireland) Katalogversion · GG-GATE0-FORENSIC-v7.0 · SHA-256-gehasht · Merkle-versioniert
// Institutional Scope

Who needs CDS — and why.

CDS addresses a market that has not previously existed as a discrete category: legislative quality assurance infrastructure. Every institution that produces, applies, or contests legal norms has a structural need.

🏛
ACCESS RESTRICTED
CDS constitutional screenings are available exclusively to governments, parliaments and EU institutions.
Law firms, corporations and NGOs: access via government mandate or on a case-by-case basis.
TIER 1 · MANDATORY
Ministries & Parliaments
Federal Ministries (BMJ, BMF, BMWK, BMI) — pre-legislative screening before cabinet decision
Bundestag / Bundesrat — committee support, opposition oversight, emergency legislation
16 State Ministries — own legislation, Bundesrat review
EU Commission — GRCh screening for secondary legislation (regulations, directives)
Scientific Service of the Bundestag — structured collision data as analytical foundation
TIER 2 · HIGH-VALUE
Law Firms & Institutions
Top-100 law firms — constitutional complaint preparation, client advisory on legislative changes
BaFin-supervised financial institutions — DORA Art. 17 compliance documentation, GwG implementation review
International investors — regulatory risk screening for ongoing legislative processes
Venice Commission — opinions on national legislative drafts in 46 Council of Europe states
TIER 3 · EMERGING
Civil Society & Global
GFF, Digitale Gesellschaft, CCC — fundamental rights litigation with structured collision evidence
EU accession candidates — rule of law monitoring as accession condition
World Bank / IMF — governance monitoring in borrowing countries
Art. 7 TEU — rule of law mechanism: machine-readable forensic documentation
PRICING STRUCTURE
Three execution tiers. One institutional flat rate.
€1.200
CDS Standalone
€2.400
CDS Hybrid
€4.800
Forensic Complete
On request
Institutional
Full Pricing →
// Next Steps
Request an analysis.
We produce a complete CDS forensic report for any legislative draft, regulation, or normative text you submit — within 24 hours. First consultation without upfront payment.
Read White Paper → Request Analysis → access@immoquick.eu
Request Analysis →