immo.quick — CDS · Constitutional Divergence Screening

// The Problem

The legislative process has a structural gap.

PHASE

TIMELINE

STATUS QUO

CDS

Draft produced

Day 0

Draft produced. No systematic constitutional review. Selective manual review under time pressure.

→ CDS scans in <200ms

Parliament

Weeks–months

Parliamentary deliberation. Committee hearings. Short legal opinions on request. No complete article-by-article comparison.

→ CDS receipt citable

Enacted

+3–18 months

Law enters into force. Authorities implement it. Investments are made. Institutions adapt their processes.

—

Challenge filed

+6 months–6 years

Constitutional complaint or judicial review application. BVerfG proceedings begin. Legal uncertainty starts immediately.

—

Unconstitutional

+2–8 years

BVerfG declares the law void. Retrospective legal uncertainty. Administrative restructuring. New legislative process.

—

Economic cost

Immediate

Minimum loss per law: €170m. Data retention (3×): ~€500m. Vattenfall arbitration: €2.4bn.

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 weeks

€12,000 – €80,000 (law firm)

Not systematic · Not complete · No reproducibility · No Merkle proof

BVerfG Constitutional Review

2–8 years

€500,000–€2m (claimant costs) + consequential costs

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 rules · GG Art. 1–20 · Art. 103/104

Judicial reservation · Proportionality · Legal certainty · Essential content

GG_RULES_GRCh

64 rules · EU Charter Art. 1–54

Dignity · Private life · Data protection · Freedom of expression · Effective remedy

GG_RULES_ENERGIE + UNIVERSAL

59 rules · Domain-specific + universal verb scanners

Deduplication: exactly one collision per article + collision type

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

Systematic review of all GG articles + Charter Art. 1–54

Three-stage theory for Art. 12 GG (Apothekenurteil BVerfGE 7, 377)

Four-stage proportionality test for every restriction

FALLBACK CHAIN (4-STAGE)

Direct JSON object → Deep-Unwrap → String fallback → verdict derivation

normalizeVerdict() handles all variants

Verbatim quotations required · No free-text parsing

// ENGINE TRACE — § 9b EnStG · DETERMINISTIC · 11/11 PATTERNS DETECTED

INPUT_LENGTH: 1,845 characters RULES_CHECKED: 156 LATENCY: 47ms

MATCH: "without judicial reservation" → RULE: RICHTERVORBEHALT_FEHLEND → Art. 13 GG
GUARD_CHECK in ±500 chars: NO GUARD FOUND → COLLISION REGISTERED: critical

MATCH: "without prior hearing procedure" → RULE: ANHOERUNG_FEHLEND → Art. 103 GG
GUARD_CHECK in ±500 chars: NO GUARD FOUND → COLLISION REGISTERED: critical

MATCH: "a challenge is excluded" → RULE: RECHTSSCHUTZ_AUSGESCHLOSSEN → Art. 19 IV GG
GUARD_CHECK in ±500 chars: NO GUARD FOUND → COLLISION REGISTERED: critical

DEDUPLICATION: 6 collisions after merge PROPORTIONALITY: Stage 1+2 PASS Stage 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.

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.

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.

// 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 July 2026 · 20:36

CO2KostAufG (5 December 2022)

CLEAR

CO2 Cost Apportionment Act · Deterministic + AI · ~38,000 characters

0 CRITICAL 0 HIGH 5 MEDIUM Proportionality PASS

Art. 12, 14, 3, 20a GG · Art. 16 EU Charter · All constitutionally sound

GG0-MR3UK5IW-44S0X · 2 July 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 July 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 July 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

GG Art. 1–20 · Art. 103/104 Dignity · Freedom · Equality · Communications privacy · Occupational freedom · Property · Legal recourse

EU Charter

Charter Art. 1–54 Dignity · Privacy · Data protection · Freedom of expression · Business freedom · Property · Legal remedy

Energy Sector

EnStG §§ 9b/10 · StromStG · CO2KostAufG Specific interaction with Art. 12, 14, 3 GG and EU ETS

Universal Scanner

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 →

Continuous Decision Systems | immo.quick

The legislative process has a structural gap.

Two engines. One result. Always identical.

Three verdicts. No grey zone. No probability.

Four real statutes. Three different verdicts.

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

Who needs CDS — and why.