Language:

immo.quick · Explained simply

Identify critical passages in a rule text earlier.

CDS screens submitted text for constitutional and fundamental-rights patterns defined in its catalogue. It identifies marked passages and the basis of the check, supporting substantive review of legislation, drafts or rule sets.

A flagged rule requires review; it is not a judgement.

When text contains a critical pattern, the responsible reviewer must examine the passage and its significance. Finding no catalogue match does not prove the text is lawful in every respect. Scope, input and catalogue version therefore accompany every result.

Read checking modes and evidence separately.

Rule-based screening and supplementary AI analysis are different methods. AI analysis does not create deterministic execution authority. Public evidence remains reviewable against its original text, mode and version.

The questions behind the process

  1. 1

    Submit text

  2. 2

    Apply the catalogue

  3. 3

    Read findings

  4. 4

    Assess substantively

Orientation sketch: the actual checks and integration depend on the system and use case.

The next step

Describe a specific operation and the systems involved. Together we can identify the required foundations and the checking path needed to establish the deployment.

Request a conversation

Find the relevant detail

Serverless explainedUnderstand CoreArchitectureFor your organizationACESTenants and rule profilesChecks and billing · STFLSystem self-assessmentVerify evidenceEvidence libraryInvestorsPress

In plain language

Is CDS a constitutional judgement?

No. CDS identifies patterns in the catalogue used and documents its checking mode. No match is not comprehensive proof of lawfulness. Substantive legal assessment remains a separate task.

Open technical documentation and existing verification tools

The existing technical reference remains accessible here. Technical labels and historical test statements apply to their documented scope; they do not establish general operational approval.

Home CDS: Constitutional Divergence Screening

LEGAL TEXT → RULE → FINDING → RECEIPT

CDS · Constitutional Divergence Screening

Which passages of a legal text need closer constitutional review? CDS compares the submitted text with encoded constitutional and fundamental-rights patterns. It makes findings, review mode and rule version traceable before an institution proceeds.

Inspect public receipts Open white paper

An early review with traceable foundations.

A ministry, parliamentary committee or legal team can screen a draft and investigate the marked passages. The machine records the encoded review path; the responsible institution assesses its legal significance.

  1. 01

    Bind the text and version

    Which draft, review scope and catalog version were actually evaluated?

  2. 02

    Check patterns and safeguards

    The rule-based path looks for encoded intervention patterns and checks safeguards present in the defined context.

  3. 03

    Record findings and result

    The receipt binds the review to its input and rule state. It can support subsequent professional review.

Distinguish rule-based screening from semantic analysis.

The deterministic rule path is reproducible for identical canonical inputs and catalog versions. The documented supplementary AI-semantic analysis supports further review. Results must be read according to their review mode; they are not deterministic execution authority.

CLEAR

No corresponding collision was found in the selected catalog. This does not certify constitutionality.

FUNDAMENTAL_RIGHTS_HOLD

An identified fundamental-rights pattern requires further review and, where applicable, a documented justification.

HARD_BLOCK

The review path marks a critical collision. It calls for professional legal assessment and is not a court judgment.

Open published reviews.

The following published system records date from July 2026. Each must be read against its documented text, review mode and rule version. The underlying receipts remain unchanged.

Discuss a specific legal-text review.

The review text, jurisdiction, catalog version and requested records define the scope together. Access and commercial terms are agreed for the institutional mandate.

Request a review Review terms

Continue your review

Questions and clear answers

What is CDS?

CDS stands for Constitutional Divergence Screening. It screens a submitted legal text for encoded constitutional and fundamental-rights patterns and records identified passages in the selected review mode.

Is a CDS result a constitutional judgment?

No. CLEAR means the selected catalog found no corresponding collision for the reviewed input. Findings are review signals; the responsible legal assessment remains with people and institutions.

Which evaluation is deterministic?

The rule-based review path is reproducible under the same canonical inputs and rule version. A supplementary AI-semantic analysis must be assessed separately and does not establish deterministic execution authority.

Request Analysis →