)]}'
{
  "commit": "2cfea0076b43001569565c2f625afa42901282cd",
  "tree": "f2dfc99525473ea5af1c02b20521fa9680ae5265",
  "parents": [
    "81777013dfa582053489efea874e84379f1f0805"
  ],
  "author": {
    "name": "Matthias Andreas Benkard",
    "email": "code@mail.matthias.benkard.de",
    "time": "Sun Jul 26 13:32:26 2026 +0200"
  },
  "committer": {
    "name": "Matthias Andreas Benkard",
    "email": "code@mail.matthias.benkard.de",
    "time": "Sun Jul 26 13:32:26 2026 +0200"
  },
  "message": "Bring the documentation up to the current state\n\nThe README still described state law as Bavaria-only, six Länder later.\nThe sample-data overview grew a section on how to obtain the pre-\namendment stems per portal — which of the three routes works, and that\nthe juris state portals are a dead end — and a short prioritised \"where\nto continue\", so the next session does not have to re-derive it.\n\nCorrected while writing it: the regression figures are not all pinned\nthe same way. UWG, AGG and ProdHaftG pin \"nothing left manual\", BayJG\npins 154 commands and names its five renumbering residues, and the state\ncases pin full application. Saying \"UWG 19/0, GEG 66/53, …\" would have\ndescribed observations, not what the tests actually assert.\n\nCo-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 \u003cnoreply@anthropic.com\u003e\nChange-Id: Ie247e9626e789e628d537bede735923d5b67d14b\n",
  "tree_diff": [
    {
      "type": "modify",
      "old_id": "d7853713e35b9ae7ca7b90a0a2d7ac5dd52950c3",
      "old_mode": 33188,
      "old_path": "README.adoc",
      "new_id": "d3a8eb5828fcc9d5e3370416e89ce372be8b2064",
      "new_mode": 33188,
      "new_path": "README.adoc"
    },
    {
      "type": "modify",
      "old_id": "00cb08bbb3b8c1f948501b6f3a19d1a20c358849",
      "old_mode": 33188,
      "old_path": "src/main/resources/sampledata/Landesrecht-Beispiele.adoc",
      "new_id": "fde672785d1d7152c6ff9cf310e4df963a27421f",
      "new_mode": 33188,
      "new_path": "src/main/resources/sampledata/Landesrecht-Beispiele.adoc"
    }
  ]
}