Jurisdictions
Honest maturity labels.
LawVM is not helped by pretending every frontend is equally mature. This page says where the active edge is.
| Jurisdiction | Status | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Finland | Active | Reference frontend. Replay from amendment streams, independent oracle verification. 690-statute corpus, active residual review. See Finland. |
| Estonia | Maintained | Consistency verification of binding consolidated law. Riigi Teataja consolidation is legally authoritative — divergences are legally significant findings, not editorial footnotes. |
| United Kingdom | Maintained | Version graph and effect feed replay. legislation.gov.uk provides versioned texts with effect metadata. |
| Norway | Experimental | Structured-amendment replay with commencement sidecars. Strong public amendment structure, weaker commencement certainty. |
| Sweden | Experimental | Source-layered current text plus official SFS PDF backfill. |
What the labels mean
Active: Where new replay semantics, normalization rules, and adjudication machinery are being exercised against a real corpus. Where the architecture is stressed.
Maintained: Compiles, tests pass, revivable when needed. Not currently where deep replay work is happening.
Experimental: Useful as architecture probes. Not a promise of deep operational maturity.
Adding a new jurisdiction
The architecture is designed for this. Adding a jurisdiction means writing a frontend parser that maps local amendment language to the shared kernel — not rebuilding the engine.
The shared kernel provides: canonical legal-address and tree model, operation vocabulary, replay execution, timeline semantics, materialization, structural invariants.
The frontend provides: source acquisition, parsing conventions, drafting idioms, payload extraction, elaboration rules, local pathology classification.
See jurisdiction_starter/ in the repository for the contract-first starter.