Find a debt-help route outside the United States

SettleADebt C_BR PASS-20 — Brazil

Ordinary civil apelação from a first-instance sentence

Reviewed component: The ordinary apelação portion of P01 D15 only.

Fresh source-access dates: October 26, 2026, America/Los_Angeles; October 27, 2026, UTC. Exact source-opening clocks: Unknown. Publication dates, judgment dates and review-completion timestamps are not source-opening times.

Assumed setting: An ordinary civil consumer-money dispute under the CPC’s procedimento comum. This is not a Juizado Especial appeal, a full agravo de instrumento report, a special or extraordinary appeal guide, a reopening opinion or an enforcement report.

P18, P19, P16, P04, P05, P08, P09 and P10 remain unreviewed for this purpose. None supplies a substantive premise. The necessary statutes and published judicial authorities were read afresh.

Core conclusion: A genuine first-instance sentença is ordinarily challenged by apelação, filed in the originating court for determination by the competent appellate tribunal. The ordinary appeal and response periods are 15 business days, but an actual deadline requires the correct notification event, applicable period privileges, calendar, suspensions and electronic-filing rules. An appeal ordinarily has suspensive effect, but statutory exceptions and the precise chapter challenged can change that result. Filing an appeal or a suspension request does not itself guarantee a stay, reversal, return of property or relief from the debt. C_BR-P20-C006, C017–C020, C024, C027–C045, C057–C062. Planalto+1

No actual party, account, provider, licence, property, contract, court order, notice or private proceeding was investigated.

1. Current law and amendment traceability

1.1 Principal operative body

The current compiled CPC was read at:

https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2015-2018/2015/lei/l13105compilada.htm

The official parallel amended text was also consulted:

https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2015-2018/2015/lei/l13105.htm

Article 1.045 provides a one-year period after official publication; the footer identifies DOU publication on March 17, 2015. Article 14 preserves completed procedural acts and established procedural situations when new procedural law applies. No exact original effective-date calculation or complete historical-transition opinion is made. C001. Planalto+2

1.2 Material amendment crosswalk

C002–C004, C030–C031, C040–C042.

Full primary URLs:

• https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2023-2026/2024/lei/l14939.htm
• https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2023-2026/2026/lei/l15484.htm
• https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2023-2026/2026/lei/l15479.htm
• https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2015-2018/2016/lei/l13256.htm
• https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2004-2006/2006/lei/l11419.htm

The publication and commencement statements above come from the enacted bodies, not page-update dates. Planalto+5

1.3 Consumer qualification and exclusions

CDC arts. 2–3 identify the consumer/supplier relationship, including qualifying remunerated credit services. That classification does not turn a common-procedure case into a Juizado Especial case or replace the CPC’s appeal route.

The actual consumer relationship, underlying debt, contractual validity, fees and substantive defenses remain unexamined. C005.

https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/leis/l8078compilado.htm, arts. 2–3. Planalto

2. Which decision is appealable by apelação?

2.1 Sentence, interlocutory decision and despacho

CPC art. 203 classifies a sentença, subject to special procedures, as the judicial act grounded in arts. 485 or 487 that ends the common procedure’s cognitive phase or extinguishes execution. An interlocutória is another decisional act. A despacho is a non-decisional procedural direction.

Under art. 1.009, apelação lies from a sentence. Under art. 1.001, a despacho is not appealable. Classification follows the act’s function and content, not merely a heading saying “sentence” or “order.” C006, C008. Planalto+2

Primary URL: CPC compiled body above, arts. 203, 485, 487, 1.001 and 1.009.

2.2 Partial merits decision

A ruling deciding only part of the merits while the rest continues under art. 356 is challenged by agravo de instrumento, not ordinary apelação. Article 354’s sole paragraph likewise supplies an agravo route for the partial termination described there.

This distinction remains even if a practitioner informally calls the ruling a “partial judgment.” C007. Planalto+1

2.3 Deferred interlocutory objections

For questions decided during the cognitive phase that do not admit an immediate agravo, art. 1.009 §1 provides:

• no preclusion merely from failure to bring an unavailable immediate appeal;
• the objection must be raised preliminarily in an eventual apelação against the final sentence, or in the respondent’s contrarrazões;
• if raised in contrarrazões, the appellant receives 15 days to answer that objection.

An issue listed in art. 1.015 that forms a chapter of the sentence itself is nevertheless challenged through apelação, under art. 1.009 §3. C009–C011. Planalto

2.4 Necessary agravo boundary: Tema 988

Article 1.015’s list is not safely treated as an absolute closed list. STJ Tema 988 adopts taxatividade mitigada: immediate agravo is available where urgency arises because waiting for review in a later apelação would make review useless.

The official Tema page records the repetitive thesis and finality. The published judgment summary and disposition were read; the complete-vote PDF route failed. The thesis was modulated to interlocutory decisions after publication of the judgment on December 19, 2018.

The published summary also contains a specific preclusion qualification concerning the exceptional outside-list construction: it refers to preclusion where an actually filed agravo is admitted. This must not be expanded into a rule excusing failure to appeal every expressly appealable interlocutory decision.

C012–C013.

Official sources:

https://processo.stj.jus.br/repetitivos/temas_repetitivos/pesquisa.jsp?cod_tema_final=988&cod_tema_inicial=988&novaConsulta=true&tipo_pesquisa=T

https://scon.stj.jus.br/SCON/jurisprudencia/toc.jsp?O=JT&b=ACOR&livre=201702262874.REG.+E+19/12/2018.FONT.

The actual ruling, its urgency, procedural stage and correct immediate route remain private-case questions. Processo STJ+1

3. Standing, filing and admissibility

3.1 Who may appeal?

Under CPC art. 996, an appeal may be filed by:

• the losing party;
• a prejudiced third party; or
• the Ministério Público, as party or guardian of the legal order.

The third party must demonstrate the possibility that the decision affects a right the third party claims to hold or may litigate as a procedural substitute. General disagreement or commercial interest alone is not the statutory showing.

Procedural interest and standing also remain required under art. 17. Sucumbência identifies the adverse result to be challenged; the actual request for appellate relief must correspond to a useful change in that result.

C014–C015. CPC arts. 17 and 996, full compiled URL above. Planalto+1

3.2 Representation and authority

Ordinary court representation follows CPC arts. 103–105. A person does not obtain authority to file appeals merely by acting as a debt consultant, collector or negotiator.

Where representation is defective, art. 76 supplies a correction mechanism. At the appellate stage, failure to comply with the correction order can result in non-admission of the appellant’s appeal or removal of the respondent’s response.

No lawyer, mandate, company authority or professional registration was checked. C016, C084. Planalto+1

3.3 Originating and deciding court

The apelação petition is directed to the first-instance court. After the response formalities, the record is sent to the competent appellate tribunal. Article 1.011 then provides distribution to a relator.

The originating judge does not conduct the ordinary admissibility screening before remitting the appeal under art. 1.010 §3. That is distinct from the special statutory situations allowing the judge to retract the sentence.

C017–C020. CPC arts. 1.010–1.011. Planalto

The identity of the competent tribunal, electronic filing category and local distribution procedure require the actual court organization. No live filing route is supplied.

3.4 Petition contents and reasons

Article 1.010 requires:

1. names and identification of the parties;
2. statement of fact and law;
3. reasons for reforming the sentence or declaring its nullity; and
4. a request for a new decision.

The appeal must confront the sentence’s relevant reasons. Repeating an earlier pleading is not automatically fatal if the repeated material actually attacks the judgment; merely reproducing the defense while leaving the judgment’s rationale unanswered can be insufficient.

C018, C022–C023. Planalto+2

3.5 Admissibility is not merits

The tribunal first considers whether it can examine the appeal: correct route, standing, interest, timeliness, representation, required preparation and adequate reasons are distinct from whether the appeal should succeed.

Article 932 allows the relator to refuse an inadmissible, moot or nonspecifically reasoned appeal. It also supplies defined monocratic merits powers involving the listed qualified authorities. Otherwise, art. 1.011 directs collegiate judgment.

The current art. 932 wording includes the 2026 amendment concerning special appeals under the relevance regime. Its presence is recorded; the full higher-court regime is not analyzed. C003, C020. Planalto+2

3.6 Formal cure does not mean rewriting an appeal after time expires

Before finding an appeal inadmissible because of a curable defect, art. 932’s sole paragraph gives the appellant five days to correct the defect or supplement required documents.

The STJ’s December 2025 judgment distinguishes that mechanism from a material absence of adequate appeal reasons. In that case, reproducing earlier pleadings without attacking the sentence was not a defect that the court had to permit the appellant to repair by supplying new substantive reasons after the deadline.

C021–C023.

Full official judgment:

https://scon.stj.jus.br/SCON/GetInteiroTeorDoAcordao?num_registro=202404498720

This does not classify every repetition as inadequate; the actual appeal and sentence must be compared. STJ+1

4. Response and adhesive appeal

4.1 Ordinary response

The respondent is intimated to file contrarrazões within 15 days, ordinarily business days. A response can defend the sentence and raise admissibility objections. The special art. 1.009 §1 mechanism can also bring a deferred interlocutory objection before the tribunal.

C010, C024. CPC arts. 1.003 §5, 1.009 §§1–2 and 1.010 §1. Planalto+1

4.2 Recurso adesivo

Where both claimant and defendant lost in some respect, either may appeal independently. A party may instead adhere to the other party’s independent appeal:

• the adhesive appeal is filed in the originating body during the response period;
• it is subject to the applicable admissibility requirements;
• the other party must have an opportunity to respond;
• it is subordinate to the principal appeal; and
• it is not heard if the principal appeal is withdrawn or inadmissible.

C025–C026. CPC arts. 997 and 1.010 §2. Planalto+1

An ordinary response is not a universal substitute for an independent or adhesive appeal seeking affirmative reform of an adverse sentence chapter. The special deferred-interlocutory mechanism is a separate statutory exception.

5. Appeal periods, notice and technical counting

5.1 Ordinary period and trigger

Article 1.003 §5 supplies 15 days for the appeal and response, except the separate embargos de declaração regime. Article 219 makes procedural periods expressed in days business-day periods.

Under art. 1.003 caput, the appeal period is tied to intimation of counsel, the law firm, public advocacy, Defensoria or Ministério Público as applicable. It is not automatically measured from:

• the date the judge signed the sentence;
• an informal client message;
• a news alert;
• the date an unrelated person viewed the file; or
• the date the creditor learned of the decision.

A decision pronounced in a hearing has the specific deemed-intimation rule in art. 1.003 §1. A pre-citation decision involving the defendant has a separate §2 linkage to art. 231, which is held at the boundary here.

C027–C029. Planalto

Primary URL: CPC compiled body, arts. 219 and 1.003.

5.2 Electronic journal: availability, publication and day one

Under Lei 11.419 art. 4 §§3–4 and CPC art. 224:

1. the date information becomes available in the electronic journal is not necessarily the publication date;
2. publication is deemed on the next business day after availability; and
3. counting begins on the next business day after publication.

C030.

https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2004-2006/2006/lei/l11419.htm, art. 4. Planalto

Portal consultation, personal notification, DJEN and Domicílio communications require classification under their applicable current rules. This pass does not import P18’s CNJ analysis or certify a portal-reading deadline. C031.

5.3 Designated counsel and defective notice

CPC art. 272 includes the required party/lawyer identification and the consequences of disregarding an express request that notifications be made in the name of designated counsel.

Its §§8–9 distinguish raising notification nullity with the act being performed from a situation where access is first necessary to perform the act. Articles 280–283 govern nullity, dependent acts and prejudice.

A notification defect does not authorize the researcher to declare an actual appeal timely without the notification, representation request, record and procedural response. C032–C033. Planalto+1

Primary URL: CPC compiled body, arts. 272 and 280–283.

5.4 Business days, recess and force majeure

A suspended remaining period and a restored full period are not the same calculation. C034–C037. Planalto+1

5.5 Multiple parties and procedural privileges

Under art. 229, co-parties with different counsel from different law offices can have doubled periods without a request, but:

• the statutory cessation qualification applies where there are only two defendants and only one presents a defense; and
• the rule does not apply in electronic proceedings.

Separate statutory rules give specified doubled periods and personal-notification treatment to the Ministério Público, public-law entities and Defensoria, subject to express special-period exceptions. These are not automatic benefits for every publicly owned company or privately assisted litigant.

C038–C039. CPC arts. 180, 183, 186 and 229. Planalto+1

5.6 Filing and technical unavailability

Electronic submissions are generally timely until 24:00 on the final day under the applicable statutory system, with the CPC’s court-timezone rule. Official system unavailability can extend the period under Lei 11.419 art. 10 §2. A party’s private internet or device problem is not automatically the same statutory event.

Article 1.003 §4 uses posting date for a legally available postal filing route. It does not establish that mail is accepted instead of mandatory electronic filing in every court.

C040.

Primary URLs:

• CPC arts. 213, 224 and 1.003 §§3–4, compiled URL above.
• https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2004-2006/2006/lei/l11419.htm, arts. 3 and 10.

Actual local filing rules, timezone, outage certificates and calendar remain unexamined. Planalto+1

5.7 Local-holiday proof after Lei 14.939/2024

The appellant should prove a local holiday at filing. Under the amended art. 1.003 §6, if the appellant fails to do so:

• the tribunal must order correction of the formal defect; or
• it may disregard the omission if the information is already in the electronic record.

C002, C041. https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2023-2026/2024/lei/l14939.htm, arts. 1–2. Planalto

The 2026 STJ judgment read here applies the correction rule but maintains untimeliness where the party was given an opportunity and failed to supply adequate proof. It also reproduces the Corte Especial’s 2025 qualification permitting the new correction approach in pending matters, subject to exhaustion of the deciding court’s jurisdiction and formal finality limits. The original 2025 judgment was not independently read; that temporal proposition is attributed to its reproduction in the 2026 full judgment.

C042–C043.

https://scon.stj.jus.br/SCON/GetInteiroTeorDoAcordao?dt_publicacao=02/09/2026&num_registro=202504455719 STJ

A cure opportunity fixes missing proof. It does not create a holiday that did not exist or extend a period merely because an appeal was late.

5.8 Embargos de declaração boundary

Article 1.026 provides interruption of the appeal period by embargos de declaração, but the applicability of that effect depends on the actual filing and admissibility context. This pass does not analyze every late, repetitive or otherwise improper filing.

If the clarification decision modifies the judgment, art. 1.024 §4 permits the other party, which has already appealed, to supplement or amend its reasons within 15 days of intimation, confined to the modification. If the clarification application is rejected or does not change the conclusion, the previously filed appeal need not be ratified under §5.

C044–C045. CPC arts. 1.024 §§4–5 and 1.026. Planalto+1

No full clarification-motion report is supplied.

6. Preparo, legal aid and correction opportunities

6.1 Distinct cost defects

The applicable court schedule determines the actual preparo. No national fee amount, percentage or payment instruction is quoted.

C046–C053.

Primary URL: https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2015-2018/2015/lei/l13105compilada.htm, art. 1.007 caput and §§1–7. Planalto

6.2 Legal aid requested in the appeal

Under art. 99 §7:

• an appellant requesting gratuidade da justiça in the appeal need not initially prove preparo;
• the relator assesses the request;
• if refused, the relator fixes a period for payment.

That subsection does not itself state a universal five-day period.

A different branch appears in art. 101: when denial or revocation of legal aid is challenged, payment is dispensed with until the relator resolves that preliminary issue; if denial or revocation is confirmed, §2 requires payment in five days, under the statutory consequence.

C054–C055. CPC arts. 98–99 and 101. Planalto+1

A natural person’s insufficiency allegation has the statutory presumption in art. 99 §3. A legal person’s application does not receive that same presumption merely by alleging difficulty. Retaining private counsel does not itself bar legal aid.

6.3 Published qualification: insufficient payment after aid refusal

In the published 2024 judgment read here, the STJ maintained the need for the art. 1.007 §2 opportunity where preparation paid after a legal-aid refusal was insufficient. This is not permission for endless cure after insufficient doubled payment under §4.

C056.

https://scon.stj.jus.br/SCON/GetInteiroTeorDoAcordao?dt_publicacao=13/11/2024&num_registro=202303840232 STJ

7. Suspensive effect and requests for suspension

7.1 Ordinary rule

Article 1.012 provides ordinary suspensive effect for apelação. The rule must be applied to the relevant sentence and chapter, taking account of statutory exceptions and any applicable special law.

A conclusion about suspensive effect is not a conclusion about the appeal’s merits. C057. Planalto

7.2 All six art. 1.012 §1 exceptions

In addition to other statutory exceptions, the following sentences produce effects immediately after publication:

These are statutory categories, not a finding that all are ordinary consumer-money cases. The provisional-relief exception can be particularly relevant to a money dispute, but the actual chapter must be inspected.

C058. CPC art. 1.012 §1. Planalto

Under §2, the respondent may request provisional enforcement after publication in those exception cases. That provision does not establish that any particular attachment, transfer or payment is automatically lawful. C059.

7.3 Where suspension is requested

For a §1 exception:

• between filing the appeal and its distribution, the request goes to the tribunal; the relator assigned to the request becomes responsible for the appeal under the statutory prevention rule;
• after distribution, the request goes to the relator.

C060. CPC art. 1.012 §3. Planalto

7.4 Preserve the actual §4 alternatives

Article 1.012 §4 permits suspension if the appellant demonstrates:

Alternative A: probability that the appeal will succeed; or

Alternative B: relevant grounds and risk of grave harm or harm difficult to repair.

The text is disjunctive. It should not be rewritten as though both alternatives always require the same combined test.

By comparison, the general art. 995 sole-paragraph rule states grave, difficult/impossible-to-repair harm and probability of appeal success. The applicable special rule must be identified rather than merging the two texts.

C061–C062. CPC arts. 995 sole paragraph and 1.012 §4. Planalto+1

A request alone is not a grant of suspension. No property restoration, execution cancellation or reversal is promised.

8. Appellate scope, immediate adjudication and new facts

8.1 Extent and depth of review

Article 1.013 distinguishes:

• extent: the tribunal receives the matters actually challenged;
• depth: within the challenged chapter, it may examine questions raised and debated below even if the first judge did not decide them;
• where a claim or defense had multiple grounds and only one was accepted, the other grounds also come before the tribunal.

Article 1.002 permits whole or partial challenge.

C063–C064. CPC arts. 1.002 and 1.013 caput/§§1–2. Planalto+1

The published 2021 STJ judgment read here preserves the distinction between the challenged chapters and the depth of examination within them. It rejected using mature-cause reasoning to worsen the sole appellant’s position by reopening an unchallenged favorable chapter.

C065.

https://scon.stj.jus.br/SCON/GetInteiroTeorDoAcordao?dt_publicacao=13/04/2021&num_registro=201903562941 STJ

8.2 Immediate merits decision: all art. 1.013 §3 branches

If the case is ready for immediate judgment, the tribunal must decide the merits where it:

1. reverses a sentence based on art. 485;
2. declares nullity because the sentence was inconsistent with the limits of the claim or cause of action;
3. identifies an omitted request; or
4. declares nullity for absence of reasons.

The readiness condition matters. There is no automatic right to remand merely because the first judge did not decide the merits, and no automatic right to an immediate appellate merits decision where essential evidence or an adequate opportunity to be heard is missing.

C066. Planalto

Article 1.013 §4 separately permits merits adjudication, if possible, after reversal of a prescription or decadence ruling. That is a procedural consequence only; no underlying prescription period is researched here. C067.

8.3 Reasons and contradiction

Article 489 requires actual reasons connecting law, facts and outcome. It identifies defects such as:

• bare reproduction of legislation;
• unexplained abstract concepts;
• generic reasons fitting any case;
• failure to address potentially outcome-changing arguments;
• unexplained use of a precedent; or
• departure from invoked authority without distinction or overruling analysis.

Articles 9–11 and 933 preserve the relevant opportunity to be heard. If the relator identifies a supervening fact or an ex officio matter not previously examined, art. 933 requires the parties to be heard in five days.

C068–C069. Planalto+2

Primary URL: CPC compiled body, arts. 9–11, 489, 933 and 938.

8.4 Necessary evidence at appellate stage

Article 938 permits correction of a curable procedural defect, including renewal of the act in the tribunal or first instance, after notice to the parties. If evidence is necessary, judgment can be converted into a diligence step, with the appeal decided after the evidence is completed.

This is not permission to bypass an opposing party’s right to address the new matter. C069. Planalto

8.5 New factual allegations

Article 1.014 allows factual questions not raised below only if the party proves that force majeure prevented presenting them.

That differs from:

• a genuinely supervening fact under arts. 493 and 933; and
• a newly formed, newly known or newly accessible document under art. 435.

A new document does not automatically authorize a new factual theory barred by art. 1.014. The reason for late presentation, relevance, good faith and opportunity for the opponent to respond remain material.

C070–C072. CPC arts. 435, 493, 933 and 1.014. Planalto+2

8.6 Retratação and correction are limited

The originating judge has specific five-day retratação provisions in the identified art. 331, art. 332 and art. 485 §7 settings. These are not a general right to rewrite every sentence once an appeal is filed.

Article 494 separately restricts alteration of a published sentence to material/calculation correction and the applicable embargos de declaração route.

C073–C074. CPC arts. 331, 332, 485 §7 and 494. Planalto+1

9. Withdrawal, waiver, acceptance and replacement

C075–C080.

Primary URL: CPC compiled body, arts. 998–1.008. The current art. 998 amendment was read in Lei 15.484/2026 art. 3. Planalto+1

10. Published judicial authorities and limits

Full URLs appear in the source register. These are not claims of exhaustive current citator review. STJ+4

The official 2022 STJ overview concerning repeated reasons was used as an explanatory qualification, not substituted for the 2025 full judgment. The latter condemns failure to confront the sentence; it does not mean that textual repetition alone always defeats an appeal. STJ

11. Fourteen fictional workflows

All proceedings, persons, notices and documents below are invented. No workflow is a filing instruction or actual eligibility determination.

Workflow count: 14.

12. Three conditional date calculations

No local calendar, closure, court order, portal certificate or actual deadline was verified. All examples assume ordinary single-party periods, valid representation, no doubled period, no qualifying interruption and no special procedure.

T01 — Appeal after electronic-journal publication

Stipulated events:

• Journal availability: Friday, February 27, 2026.
• Next business day, deemed publication: Monday, March 2, 2026.
• First counting day: Tuesday, March 3, 2026.
• No holiday, closure or suspension in the assumed interval.

Count:

• March 3–6: days 1–4.
• March 9–13: days 5–9.
• March 16–20: days 10–14.
• March 23: day 15.

15 business days = Tuesday, March 3 through Monday, March 23, 2026

If March 6 were an applicable court holiday, all other assumptions unchanged:

15th business day = Tuesday, March 24, 2026

This is not a live deadline. The actual journal and any personal-notification requirement must be established. C081.

Sources: CPC arts. 219, 224, 1.003 §5; Lei 11.419 art. 4 §§3–4. Planalto+1

T02 — Insufficient preparation: five-day cure

Stipulation: Counsel is validly intimated under art. 1.007 §2 on Monday, March 2, 2026. No excluded day intervenes.

• Day 0, excluded: March 2.
• March 3: day 1.
• March 4: day 2.
• March 5: day 3.
• March 6: day 4.
• March 9: day 5.

Five business days after March 2 = Monday, March 9, 2026

If March 6 were a relevant closure, the fifth day becomes Tuesday, March 10.

This example concerns insufficient payment under §2, not the §4 no-proof/double-payment branch. No fee amount is assumed. C082. Planalto

T03 — Respondent’s response and adhesive window

Stipulation: The respondent is validly intimated to respond on Monday, March 9, 2026.

• Day 0: March 9.
• March 10–13: days 1–4.
• March 16–20: days 5–9.
• March 23–27: days 10–14.
• March 30: day 15.

Ordinary response endpoint = Monday, March 30, 2026

If March 20 were an applicable closure, the endpoint becomes Tuesday, March 31.

An eligible adhesive appeal uses the response period, but eligibility, dependency, preparation and adequate reasons remain separate. The exact final electronic-filing instant depends on the court’s rules and timezone. C083.

Sources: CPC arts. 219, 224, 997 §2(I), 1.003 §5 and 1.010 §1. Planalto+1

13. Exact P01 D15 crosswalk

Preserved literal record

Original coordinator status remains explicit_deferred_hold_preserved.

PASS-20 narrow dispositions

Crosswalk count: 11 logical items and 11 physical data rows—one preserved record plus ten dispositions.

14. Source register

Access metadata: Every row records access or an attempted access on October 26, 2026 PDT / October 27, 2026 UTC. Exact per-source clocks are unknown.

A “full-judgment PDF” identifies the official document, not a claim that every unrelated passage or cited precedent was independently reviewed. Relevant PDF pages were visually inspected.

Source-register count: 20 rows: seven statutory bodies, four full-judgment PDFs, two official Tema 988 records, three official overview/digest records, one public locator and three failed routes. Source rows are not counts of unique URLs or fresh all-body certifications.

15. Atomic claim/evidence register

All claim IDs are C_BR-P20-Cxxx. Source IDs refer to the complete literal URLs above. A097 concerns actor/capacity; A098 concerns procedural rights, timing, effects and limitations.

Atomic claim count: 85.

16. Granular core coverage

Core-coverage count: 100.

17. Separately deferred families

Deferred-family count: 28.

18. All 27 inherited states and Distrito Federal

The names are inherited from the preserved P01 territorial inventory. No geography API or new territorial certification was used. Reading a federal judgment about a state-origin case does not verify that state’s current local appeal rules.

Territorial count: 27; no state or DF branch is cleared.

19. Evidence-backed article, checklist and tool specifications

No website, filing-ready appeal, tool or publication was created.

20. Reconciliation and researcher self-check

Exact unresolved inputs for an actual appeal

A real assessment would require the complete sentence and challenged chapters; applicable procedure; party and representative authority; the legally effective notification record; any clarification decision; current local calendar and outage records; fee schedule and payment or aid documents; the proposed grounds and requested change; the full evidentiary record; any immediate-effect chapter; the suspension application and order; reciprocal loss and adhesive-appeal status; and any conduct alleged to constitute waiver or acceptance.

Final disposition: PASS-20 establishes the narrow federal gateway for ordinary apelação, including route classification, standing, filing, reasons, admissibility, periods, preparation, aid, suspension, devolutive scope, immediate adjudication, new facts, responses and withdrawal-related boundaries. It does not establish that any actual appeal is timely, admissible, suspended, well founded or successful; that any debt is valid or discharged; or that any provider, contract, locality, component or Brazil-wide operating model is authorized or accepted.

END C_BR PASS-20