Executes all remaining shared jurisdictions across both workplans:
Germany/EU (deepened contract-law angle), US (deepened), UK (deepened),
Argentina, India, China, Africa (South Africa + OHADA), and Asia-Pacific
(Singapore, Japan, Australia) - 13 new history/ research artifacts.
Highest-priority findings:
- Australia's Unfair Contract Terms regime (expanded Nov 2023) covers
standard-form contracts with any business under 100 employees/$10M
turnover by default - the CUA is exactly such a contract, and most
realistic Customers fall within this threshold. Unlike every other
jurisdiction's consumer carve-out, this is not an edge case.
- China requires a "foreign-related" contract even to select foreign
governing law, subject to a vague public-interest override even then -
confirms a dedicated China rider is needed for both the License/CUA and
the Enforcement Partner Agreement, not a shared global clause.
- India flatly prohibits advocate contingency fees (no exception gates,
stricter than Germany) while explicitly permitting third-party
litigation funding - the cleanest confirmation yet that the Litigation
Funder/Local Counsel split-role model is both necessary and legal there.
- Japan's Article 12 fee-splitting rule means even the split-role
fallback needs jurisdiction-specific structuring - the first case where
the workaround itself, not just the original mechanism, has an open
compliance question.
- Contingency Share ceilings vary widely where available: UK 50% (exact
match), South Africa 25%, Argentina 35% (50% only with risk assumption),
China 18% down to 6% on a sliding scale that shrinks as claims grow.
- Recurring cross-jurisdictional pattern (Germany, EU, US via CCPA,
Argentina): B2B governing-law/liability clauses are respected, but an
individual/sole-proprietor Customer's consumer-protection status is the
operative risk everywhere, not a one-off edge case.
Updates specs/EnforcementNetworkConcept.md §8.1 with a full 12-jurisdiction
findings table and three cross-cutting conclusions. Updates both V1C1
documents' Appendix A items (governing law, liability cap, data
protection) with the most consequential findings. Both workplans now have
only their human-gated synthesis tasks (T09-T10 / T10) remaining.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Introduces specs/EnforcementNetworkConcept.md: independent, locally-licensed
Enforcement Partners pursue unauthorized Commercial Use (License §3
violations) in their home jurisdiction for a Contingency Share of Recovery,
so enforcement scales the way the framework's monetization already does -
through aligned incentive rather than central litigation capacity. New
terminology (Alleged Violation, Enforcement Action, Recovery, Contingency
Share, Platform Share, Enforcement Registry, Enforcement Partner Agreement)
plus a proposed enforcement-recovery Monetization Extension so Recovery
flows into Development Credit through the existing accounting model rather
than a parallel bucket.
Flags the mechanism's central risk up front rather than assuming it away:
lawyer contingency fees are not legal everywhere. Backed by
workplans/TREV-WP-0005-enforcement-network-research.md (10 tasks); four
executed this session with live web research:
- Germany/EU: RVG §4a permits contingency fees only in three narrow gates,
none fitting this fact pattern well - single-role Enforcement Partner is
very likely not viable; France permits a fixed-fee-plus-uncapped-result-
fee structure instead; EU litigation-funding regulation is proposed
(2022 EP resolution) but not yet adopted.
- US: contingency fees broadly permitted; practical precondition is timely
copyright registration of the Milestone Release to unlock statutory
damages/fee-shifting; Copyright Claims Board flagged as a lower-cost venue.
- UK: Damages-Based Agreements cap fees at 50% for this case category -
the concept's originally-proposed 50% Contingency Share lands exactly on
this real statutory ceiling, the first jurisdiction where the figure is
precisely validated rather than arbitrary.
- Mechanism design: synthesizes the above into a single Enforcement Partner
Agreement template with jurisdiction-conditional role structure
(single-role vs. Litigation Funder/Local Counsel split), with a payment-
flow diagram showing the Development Credit allocation is unaffected by
which structure applies.
Six of ten WP-0005 tasks remain open (Argentina, India, China, Africa,
Asia-Pacific, and the human-gated synthesis). Cross-referenced from README.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
