Prayer_for_Relief_Docs/plans/evaluate-ten-case-v1s-2026-09-03.md

Evaluate Ten Claim-Purpose V1 Rule Documents

Objective

Apply 0_사건종류_추가/evaluation_prompt_on_1st_draft_v.1.txt independently to the ten user-selected Korean civil claim-purpose V1 rule documents and save one reviewable evaluation report per case type.

Deliverables

• 청구취지작성규칙_수표금청구_평가서_v1.md
• 청구취지작성규칙_설계비시설대여금청구_평가서_v1.md
• 청구취지작성규칙_신용장대금청구_평가서_v1.md
• 청구취지작성규칙_신용카드이용대금청구_평가서_v1.md
• 청구취지작성규칙_압류채권대금청구_평가서_v1.md
• 청구취지작성규칙_운임운송대금청구_평가서_v1.md
• 청구취지작성규칙_재산상속회복청구_평가서_v1.md
• 청구취지작성규칙_특허권전용실시대금실용신안권실시대금청구_평가서_v1.md
• 청구취지작성규칙_종류물대체물의지급또는인도를구하는소_평가서_v1.md
• 청구취지작성규칙_장래이행의소_평가서_v1.md

Each deliverable is saved in its matching 0_사건종류_추가/사건종류_<사건키>/ folder.

Scope and Non-Scope

• Scope: evaluate completeness, accuracy/currentness, concision, authority integrity, and tree-to-form reachability under the supplied evaluation prompt.
• Jurisdiction and procedural frame: Republic of Korea civil litigation; professional draft review as of 2026-09-03 (Asia/Seoul).
• Inputs: each case folder's unique V1 and unique 취지기재례_*.pdf, plus the normative portions of the V1 generation contract.
• Non-scope: editing any V1 or PDF, drafting V2, modifying unrelated files, or reading/updating MEMORY_Claude.md.

Known Inputs

• The ten display names all occur in the source # 사건 종류 list.
• Preflight found exactly one V1 and one PDF in every target folder.
• Preflight found no existing *_평가서_v1.md in any target folder.
• Initial V1 SHA-256 values are recorded in the Evidence Ledger below.

Material Assumptions

• The user’s express direction to perform independent simultaneous parallel work controls over the evaluation prompt’s default sequential/main-agent-only execution policy.
• Independence is preserved by assigning disjoint case folders and requiring each case to begin from its own V1, PDF, generation contract, and fresh authority queue.
• Within a stream, one case’s report and validation finish before the next case begins.
• The final root-level pass reconciles only validation method and report consistency; it does not import one case’s substantive rules into another.

Questions That Could Change the Outcome

• None at preflight. Every case name is valid, every input pair is unique, and no output requires overwrite approval.

Workstreams and Dependencies

• Stream A: 수표금 청구 → 신용카드이용대금 청구 → 압류채권대금 청구.
• Stream B: 재산상속회복 청구 → 종류물(대체물)의 지급 또는 인도를 구하는 소 → 장래이행의 소.
• Stream C: 신용장대금 청구 → 특허권전용실시대금・실용신안권실시대금 청구.
• Stream D (root): 설계비・시설대여금 청구 → 운임(운송대금) 청구.
• Dependency: all ten case-level reports must pass case-local validation before cross-stream reconciliation and final reporting.

Source and Tool Plan

• Read each V1 and PDF in full once; extract IDs, transitions, forms, citations, URLs, and PDF examples into a deduplicated case-local queue.
• Verify statutes first against the National Law Information Center, judgments/forms against Supreme Court or Korean court official sources, and other official institutional materials where relevant.
• Distinguish source existence, proposition support, temporal validity, and derived-rule fit.
• Run one focused search per case for amendments, scheduled rules, and relevant Supreme Court or en banc decisions from the three years preceding 2026-09-03.
• Record inaccessible material as 미검증; do not infer nonexistence from failed access or zero-result searches.

Validation Plan

• Confirm required sections ## 0 through ## 8, valid UTF-8, nonempty output, no ### token, and no accidental extra files.
• Confirm every partial/missing coverage entry links to a defect ID.
• Confirm every S1/S2 row has a V1 locator, concrete impact, official/internal structural evidence, verification status, and specific V2 action.
• Confirm every V1 external authority appears in the citation/currentness ledger.
• Reconcile defect IDs and S1/S2/S3 totals across sections 0, 1, 2, 4, and 6.
• Recompute all ten V1 SHA-256 values and compare with preflight.

Approval Boundaries

• No external writes, publication, messages, dependency installation, destructive commands, or overwrite of existing deliverables.
• Local creation of the ten requested reports and this living plan is authorized.

Progress

• Read governing repository workflows and the complete evaluation prompt.
• Confirm the ten case names in the source list.
• Confirm one V1, one PDF, and zero existing evaluation reports per target.
• Record initial V1 hashes.
• Complete Stream A reports and case-local validation.
• Complete Stream B reports and case-local validation.
• Complete Stream C reports and case-local validation.
• Complete Stream D reports and case-local validation.
• Perform cross-stream structural, citation-ledger, count, UTF-8, token, and hash validation.
• Record aggregate results and residual uncertainty.

Decision Log

Date/Stage	Decision	Basis	Consequence
2026-09-03 / intake	Use four disjoint concurrent streams with sequential fresh cycles inside each stream.	The user expressly requested independent simultaneous parallel work; only four active slots are available.	Maximizes concurrency without two agents touching the same case folder.
2026-09-03 / preflight	Proceed without an overwrite question.	All ten output counts were zero.	Reports may be created directly.
2026-09-03 / source policy	Treat 2026-09-03 as the legal-currentness cutoff and preserve access failures as 미검증.	Repository evidence policy and evaluation prompt.	No unsupported negative inference from network or search failures.
2026-09-03 / report normalization	Use only 완전/부분/누락/적법한 제외/미검증 in section 1 and allocate each defect once to one of the three evaluation axes.	The evaluation prompt fixes the status vocabulary and three independent axes.	Cross-case totals are comparable without changing case-specific legal judgments.
2026-09-03 / final validation	Treat literal validator keywords in acceptance-checklist prose as avoidable false positives and replace them without changing substance.	Independent read-only validation found three checklist mentions, not unresolved values.	All ten reports pass the same deterministic token check.

Evidence Ledger

Claim/Issue	Source or Test	Status	Notes
Ten requested display names are valid	청구취지규칙문서_추가작업_Sep_2.txt, # 사건 종류	Verified	Exact names found.
수표금 V1 immutability baseline	SHA-256	Verified	ec2827a641b7d77f7179953bb162202b5dc9bfa71bff10e545c45a3bd4acb38c
설계비·시설대여금 V1 immutability baseline	SHA-256	Verified	e4060d08a1544caed4fdb244f6238251cea1e212cfe145ddefc63aed1955a188
신용장대금 V1 immutability baseline	SHA-256	Verified	94accd066244708d98e14647eb7650921008bf48b3b09a19f17b171a1c2a50be
신용카드이용대금 V1 immutability baseline	SHA-256	Verified	0bb465d57acddbe6aef04b9800e4370b6502f553fbf33b7d26e7d90850f4a942
압류채권대금 V1 immutability baseline	SHA-256	Verified	851047c7c44ca4b91b2d5df79dac7991cced7a4ac74294708409cece1b089299
운임·운송대금 V1 immutability baseline	SHA-256	Verified	4e3f66a62e444f46ebb38bc05197fec620d30b8de8fd63b343b90353de7306aa
재산상속회복 V1 immutability baseline	SHA-256	Verified	eb898002a2f2ab46693ce363b5fd6257f412db85debcd09f85615bc3f02c683a
특허·실용신안 실시대금 V1 immutability baseline	SHA-256	Verified	69dc8d12516d4ecba34224c124441b3a32adb98e574e7af4cf8ca1991fcfd142
종류물·대체물 V1 immutability baseline	SHA-256	Verified	10902725779fcd298ea56202d888a181617725c83184f697e7b25d5d12db28ef
장래이행 V1 immutability baseline	SHA-256	Verified	5f382f8c70903c05cd6ec24731623f2d5e5e6c304f824b40bf677e4e24920a79
Inputs and output absence	find, line count, file count	Verified	Each folder: V1=1, PDF=1, output=0.
Ten requested evaluation reports	File inventory and title/path match	Verified	Exactly one matching report in every target folder; no target is missing or duplicated.
Required structure and encoding	Heading/status/token/UTF-8 checks	Verified	All ten reports have ## 0 through ## 8 once and in order, use allowed coverage states, are nonempty UTF-8, and contain no unresolved or forbidden token.
Defect accounting	Section 0 totals versus section 2 rows	Verified	All ten reports reconcile; aggregate count is S1 83, S2 94, S3 35.
V1 immutability	Final SHA-256 batch comparison	Verified	All ten final hashes equal the preflight baselines.

Risks and Failure Modes

• Official-source access may fail or expose only metadata; unresolved propositions must remain 미검증.
• Old PDF examples may encode superseded rates or practice; they are coverage inputs, not current authority.
• Generic monetary-claim boilerplate can conceal case-specific party, maturity, document-presentation, limitation, or enforcement issues.
• Unicode normalization differs between display names and filesystem folder names; validation must resolve actual paths instead of synthesizing them blindly.
• Parallel reports may use inconsistent severity calibration; the root pass must reconcile rubric use without homogenizing substantive findings.

Results and Residual Uncertainty

Case type	Overall result	S1/S2/S3
수표금 청구	개정 필요	6/9/5
설계비・시설대여금 청구	개정 필요	11/8/5
신용장대금 청구	개정 필요	15/10/4
신용카드이용대금 청구	개정 필요	7/12/5
압류채권대금 청구	개정 필요	9/11/4
운임(운송대금) 청구	개정 필요	14/6/5
재산상속회복 청구	개정 필요	5/9/0
특허권전용실시대금・실용신안권실시대금 청구	개정 필요	10/10/4
종류물(대체물)의 지급 또는 인도를 구하는 소	개정 필요	3/9/2
장래이행의 소	개정 필요	3/10/1
합계	10건 모두 개정 필요	83/94/35

Final batch validation passed 10/10 reports: required sections, title/path match, allowed coverage states, partial/missing-to-defect links, defect totals, UTF-8, forbidden-token scan, and all ten V1 hashes.

Residual uncertainty is case-specific and disclosed in each report. It principally concerns inaccessible historical or lower-court full text, contract/terms incorporation and underlying transaction facts, temporal application of selected amended rules or notices, and legal characterization that requires a qualified lawyer with the complete record. No evaluation axis is left in 판정 유보; confirmed defects independently support 개정 필요 in every case.