What the build enforces

Rules you have to remember are not rules. The 4 cases on this page are decisions taken here in the course of the work, each with a visible consequence in the build: work against one and you do not get a warning, you get a red run.

The Bavarian approval is a checksum, not a promise

Bavarian pages go live only once the human has approved them. The approval is held in the build as a checksum over the rendered text: change an approved Bavarian page and you do not get a warning, you get a red build — and it stays red until a new approval has been recorded.

Bookkeeping fields are excluded. Version, draft flag, ordering and the operator notes do not count as text. A checksum that had to be reset every time someone corrected a note would be renewed reflexively until it meant nothing.

What follows from that is inconvenient and intended: a status label on an approved page is text as well. It cannot be changed in passing.

A published address is not renamed

The page is called “DSGVO in 3 Schichten”. Its address ends in dsgvo-drei-schichten — spelled out, from before the rule that figures are written as digits.

It stays that way. An address that is published, and that appears in this site’s machine-readable overview, is a promise to everything pointing at it. It changes with a redirect and a decision, not as a side effect of a style rule. The build checks explicitly that no renamed variant ships.

A sentence that became untrue at launch

The privacy policy said: “Input is not stored.” Absolute, and correct, as long as the site accepted nothing.

With the chat assistant the sentence became untrue the moment somebody types — the processor stores transiently. So the sentence was not weakened but narrowed to the area this studio controls: not stored on our systems beyond the session. The provider half sits in full in the assistant’s own section.

The build permits exactly 2 states and rejects the mixed ones: an assistant without the narrowed sentence, or the narrowed sentence without an assistant. Both would be wrong, each in a different direction.

A check that cannot fail is not a check

Before a check is believed to secure something, it is switched off and the run repeated. If nothing goes red, either it does nothing or the run does not reach it.

On 12.08.2026 that turned up 6 such mechanisms in a single day. None of them by reading. Several were correct answers from checks that could not have produced a wrong one.

The change has to be hostile rather than plausible: 2 of 3 attempts on the same day ran green, because the test case never touched the mechanism. Changing gently confirms your own check, and it is the same mistake one level up.