SettleADebt C_BR PASS-21 — Brazil
Ordinary civil embargos de declaração: clarification, correction and limited modifying effects
Reviewed component: The clarification/correction portion of P01 D15 only.
Actual fresh-access date: October 27, 2026 in both America/Los_Angeles and UTC.
Exact source-opening clocks: Unknown. Judgment, signature, publication and review-completion dates are not source-opening timestamps.
Assumed setting: An ordinary civil judicial decision in a generic consumer-money dispute governed by the CPC. No actual debt, contract, person, notice, account, court order or private proceeding was examined.
P18, P19, P20, P16, P04, P05, P08, P09 and P10 remain unreviewed for this purpose. Their findings are not premises here. The necessary statutory provisions and published authorities were read afresh.
Central determination: Embargos de declaração address a qualifying defect in a judicial decision. They are not an unrestricted request to reconsider the merits. A qualifying, timely filing ordinarily interrupts the period for other appeals, but does not automatically suspend the decision, stop collection, reopen every procedural period or secure admission of a later higher-court appeal. C_BR-P21-C005–C006, C042–C053. Planalto+1
1. Current statutory framework
1.1 Operative text and commencement
The principal source is the current compiled CPC:
https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2015-2018/2015/lei/l13105compilada.htm
The material chapter is arts. 1.022–1.026, read with the narrowly necessary provisions on judicial decisions, reasons, standing, representation, notice and time.
Article 1.045 states a one-year period after official publication; the official footer identifies publication in the DOU on March 17, 2015. Article 14 preserves completed procedural acts and established procedural situations when new procedural law applies. No exact original effective date or full historic-proceeding transition is calculated. C001. Planalto+1
1.2 Material currentness checks
| Instrument |
Actual narrow relevance |
Status at access |
| Lei 14.939/2024 |
Amended CPC art. 1.003 §6 concerning missing proof of a local holiday. |
Effective on publication, DOU July 31, 2024. The correction mechanism does not invent a holiday or make an actually late filing timely. |
| Lei 15.479/2026 |
Displayed CPC amendment concerning support enforcement and related provisions. |
Enacted-future: art. 4 provides one year after publication, DOU July 30, 2026. Not applied as current ordinary clarification law. |
| Lei 15.484/2026 |
Higher-appeal relevance regime and linked appellate provisions. |
Thirty-day vacatio after DOU extra August 4, 2026; operative by access. It does not replace arts. 1.022–1.026. Higher-appeal admissibility remains a separate module. |
| Lei 11.419/2006 |
Electronic filing, journal publication and system-unavailability boundary. |
Operative body read. Article 22 provides 90 days after publication; footer identifies DOU December 20, 2006. Current CNJ and local implementation were not rerun. |
C002–C004, C026, C030–C031.
Full URLs:
No claim of an exhaustive amendment-chain or later-citator certification follows from these selected reads. Planalto+3
2. The proper target and proper defect
2.1 Which decisions?
CPC art. 1.022 permits embargos de declaração against any judicial decision for its specified defects. That includes an interlocutory decision, a sentence, a collegiate acórdão and an appropriate single-judge appellate decision.
A genuinely non-decisional despacho is different: art. 1.001 excludes appeals from despachos. The content and function of the act matter, not merely its heading. A clerk’s certificate, creditor demand or private message is not a judicial decision simply because a party disagrees with it. C005–C006.
Primary URL:
https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2015-2018/2015/lei/l13105compilada.htm, arts. 203–204, 994(IV), 1.001 and 1.022. Planalto+2
2.2 Four statutory grounds
| Ground |
What must be identified |
What is not enough |
| Obscuridade |
A passage whose meaning or operative command is unclear and needs clarification. |
The party dislikes an otherwise intelligible result. |
| Contradição |
An incompatibility inside the decision, such as inconsistent premises or a conflict between reasons and disposition. |
A conflict between the decision and the party’s preferred evidence, argument or proposed outcome, without an internal defect. |
| Omissão |
A point or question the judge was required to decide, on request or ex officio, but did not decide. |
Every unanswered sentence, citation or subsidiary argument, irrespective of materiality. |
| Erro material |
A clerical, transcription, identification or arithmetic mistake that can be corrected without replacing a deliberate legal judgment. |
Changing a deliberately selected rate, valuation method or legal conclusion merely by calling it “arithmetic.” |
C009–C011, C020–C022. CPC art. 1.022(I)–(III), full URL above. The STJ’s May 2026 judgment distinguishes internal inconsistency from disagreement with the result. Planalto+1
2.3 Mandatory-precedent and reason-giving omissions
Article 1.022’s sole paragraph expressly treats a decision as omitted where it:
- fails to address an applicable thesis established in repetitive-case adjudication or an incidente de assunção de competência; or
- falls within a defect described in art. 489 §1.
The applicability predicate matters. Mentioning an unrelated precedent does not require the court to rewrite its decision. C012. Planalto
Article 489 §1 supplies six separate reason-giving defects:
| Paragraph |
Defect |
| I |
Merely quoting or paraphrasing legislation without explaining its connection to the case. |
| II |
Using an indeterminate legal concept without explaining its concrete application. |
| III |
Giving a generic reason capable of justifying any decision. |
| IV |
Failing to address an argument capable, in principle, of defeating the adopted conclusion. |
| V |
Invoking a precedent or súmula without identifying its determining grounds and showing the case fits them. |
| VI |
Declining to follow invoked súmula, jurisprudence or precedent without explaining distinction or overruling. |
C013–C018.
Primary URL:
https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2015-2018/2015/lei/l13105compilada.htm, arts. 489 §1 and 1.022 sole paragraph. Planalto+1
2.4 Concise reasons can be sufficient
A terse decision is not necessarily unreasoned. The material question is whether the necessary issue and potentially outcome-changing argument were addressed.
The STF’s general constitutional proposition that reasons may be concise was found through an official 2022 decision reproducing Tema 339. The original Tema page failed; the full original merits judgment was not obtained. Therefore, this report uses that proposition only as an attributed reproduction, not as a fresh certification of the original judgment’s full reasoning, vote composition or later treatment.
The statutory art. 489 requirements remain independently operative. C019.
Official reproduction:
https://portal.stf.jus.br/servicos/dje/verDiarioProcesso.asp?codCapitulo=6&codMateria=3&dataPublicacaoDj=09/08/2022&incidente=6327532&numDj=157&numMateria=145 Portal STF
2.5 Material correction versus another merits appeal
Article 494 allows correction of material inaccuracies and calculation errors in a published sentence, ex officio or on request, and separately allows alteration through embargos de declaração.
A simple correction request is not automatically a timely statutory clarification appeal and must not be assumed to interrupt another appeal period. Likewise, a request to reweigh the contract, replace a legal theory or introduce an old factual allegation does not become proper embargos merely by using “omission” in the heading. C021–C022.
Primary URL: CPC compiled body, arts. 494 and 1.022. Planalto+1
3. Actor, court, petition and time
3.1 Standing and representation
Article 996 identifies the losing party, a prejudiced third party and the Ministério Público in its relevant capacity as potential appellants. A third party must demonstrate the statutory connection between the decision and its claimed right. Procedural interest remains necessary.
A party seeking clarification must identify a useful correction or integration of the decision; abstract disagreement is not a substitute for interest. Ordinary court representation follows art. 103 and applicable mandate rules. This report establishes no debt-adviser or other professional permission to file in court. C007–C008, C070.
Primary URL:
https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2015-2018/2015/lei/l13105compilada.htm, arts. 17, 103, 994(IV) and 996. Planalto+1
3.2 Same issuing judge or court
The petition is directed to the judicial body responsible for the decision:
- a first-instance judge addresses defects in that judge’s decision;
- the relevant collegiate body addresses its acórdão through the relator’s statutory presentation;
- a single-judge appellate decision is addressed by its issuing body, monocratically, under art. 1.024 §2.
It is not an automatic transfer of the dispute to a higher tribunal. C023, C036–C037.
Primary URL: CPC arts. 1.023–1.024. Planalto
3.3 What the petition must identify
Article 1.023 requires a petition identifying the error, obscurity, contradiction or omission.
For a usable classification, the petition should connect:
challenged passage → precise statutory defect → missing clarification/correction → effect requested.
That is an analytical specification, not a filing-ready form. Where a changed outcome is sought, the applicant must explain why correcting the defect necessarily produces that change rather than merely asking for another merits decision. C033, C041. Planalto
3.4 Five business days—not fifteen
The ordinary filing period is five days under art. 1.023. Article 219 makes procedural day periods business days. The ordinary 15-day rule in art. 1.003 §5 expressly excepts embargos de declaração.
The trigger is the legally effective intimation under the applicable route, not necessarily the signature date, the date the client heard about the decision or an informational email alert. A decision pronounced in a hearing has the relevant art. 1.003 §1 deemed-intimation rule. C024–C026.
Primary URL: CPC arts. 219, 224, 272, 1.003 and 1.023. Planalto+2
Electronic-journal sequence
Under Lei 11.419 art. 4 §§3–4:
- availability in the electronic journal;
- deemed publication on the following business day; and
- commencement of counting on the next business day
are separate events.
https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2004-2006/2006/lei/l11419.htm, art. 4. C026. Planalto
Current CNJ channel allocation, personal portal consultation and local implementation are not fully reviewed here. P18 is not used to fill that gap.
3.5 Notice defects, holidays and technical interruption
CPC art. 272 protects the specified publication and designated-counsel requirements. Its §§8–9 distinguish raising a defective notification while performing the required act from seeking access and a new opportunity after recognition of the defect.
Articles 219–224 govern business days, exclusion of the opening day, inclusion of the endpoint, recess, qualifying obstruction and just cause. The December 20–January 20 suspension is distinct from the interruptive effect of embargos.
The current art. 1.003 §6 holiday-proof mechanism requires correction of missing proof or permits disregard of the omission where the information is already in the electronic record. It does not establish that every late filing is curable. C025–C027, C030. Planalto+2
Electronic filing to the final statutory hour, court timezone and official system unavailability require the actual court’s rules and certificate. A party’s personal internet failure is not automatically official court-system unavailability. C031.
Primary URLs: CPC arts. 213, 219–224, 272 and 1.003 §6; Lei 11.419 arts. 3 and 10. Planalto+1
3.6 Period privileges
Article 1.023 §1 expressly applies art. 229:
- different counsel from different law offices can produce a doubled period for qualifying co-parties;
- the statutory cessation condition must be considered; and
- the art. 229 benefit does not apply to electronic proceedings.
Separate provisions govern the Ministério Público, public-law entities and Defensoria, with personal-notification and express-special-period qualifications. A publicly owned company or a privately assisted person does not automatically fall within every such category. C028–C029. Planalto+1
3.7 No preparo
Article 1.023 states that these applications are not subject to preparo.
That is not a promise that:
- the lawyer works without charge;
- every other procedural cost is waived;
- a previously ordered fee-payment period stops; or
- a dilatory-filing fine cannot arise.
C032, C048. CPC art. 1.023; the 2024 published STJ judgment discussed below distinguishes appeal filing from preparation-payment duties. Planalto+1
4. Decision process and possible modifying effects
4.1 Opponent’s participation
If granting the application may modify the challenged decision, art. 1.023 §2 requires the judge to notify the opponent, who may respond within five days.
This is a separate clock from the applicant’s five-day filing period. The possibility of a changed outcome is the relevant statutory predicate; the judge should not first change the result and only afterward assume the opponent would have had nothing useful to say. C034. Planalto
Published qualifications do not create a blanket notice exception
Two read judgments illustrate different records:
- REsp 2.269.854-PA, August 2026: the STJ found a material omission concerning an asserted lack of prior participation before modifying relief and remitted the matter for the origin court to address the omitted issue. It did not itself decide every underlying nullity or merits question.
- AREsp 2.871.314-SP, October 2025: the origin court was deciding the clarification application again following an STJ remand; the party had already been heard and had not identified a further omitted contention. The STJ declined to re-examine that factual procedural record.
The latter does not authorize dispensing with art. 1.023 §2 whenever a judge considers notice unnecessary. C035. STJ+1
Full URLs:
4.2 Decision timing
Article 1.024 directs the judge to decide within five days. That is a judicial processing period, not a new party filing period, automatic grant, automatic debt discharge or authorization to disregard the existing decision.
In a tribunal, the relator presents the application at the following session; if it is not judged there, it is automatically placed on the agenda. A single-judge decision is clarified by its issuing body monocratically. C036–C037. Planalto
4.3 Conversion into agravo interno
Under art. 1.024 §3, if the deciding body considers agravo interno the proper remedy, it must first notify the applicant to supplement the reasons within five days, adapting them to art. 1.021 §1.
This express conversion mechanism is not a universal promise that any wrongly chosen appeal will be accepted or that filing an inadmissible document always preserves another deadline. C038. Planalto
4.4 Outcome-changing correction
A correction may change the result when that change follows from curing a genuine defect. The permissible modifying effect is connected to the clarification function; it is not a free second trial.
If the opponent already filed another appeal, art. 1.024 §4 permits supplementation or alteration of that appeal’s reasons:
- within 15 days from intimation of the clarification decision; and
- only within the exact limits of the modification.
If the application is rejected or leaves the prior conclusion unchanged, the other party’s already-filed appeal proceeds without ratification under §5. C039–C041. Planalto
5. Interruption: what restarts and what does not
5.1 The ordinary effect
Article 1.026 interrupts the period for filing an appeal. For a qualifying application, the relevant other appeal period begins again in full after legally effective intimation of the clarification decision; it is not merely the unused remainder of the old period.
The other party’s appeal period can receive that effect as well. This procedural consequence is distinct from whether the application succeeds on its defect allegation. C042. STJ+1
5.2 Rejected on the defect merits is not the same as inadmissible
The Fourth Panel’s May 2026 judgment and the Second Panel’s June 2026 judgment distinguish:
| Classification |
Interruption consequence established by the read authorities |
| Timely application alleging a proper clarification defect, later rejected because the court finds no defect |
Ordinarily interrupts the other appeal period. |
| Application described as “not known” solely because the claimed defect was not found |
The label alone does not remove interruption; the actual reason matters. |
| Untimely application |
Does not interrupt. |
| Manifestly inadmissible application |
Does not interrupt under the read STJ qualification. |
| Mere request for reconsideration or modification identifying no clarification defect |
Cannot safely be treated as a qualifying interruptive application. |
C043–C046.
The May 2026 judgment expressly identifies lateness, manifest inadmissibility and absence of any identified clarification defect as the adverse branches. STJ+1
Full URLs:
5.3 Special higher-appeal gate: no generalization
A 2026 STJ judgment applied a narrower rule concerning embargos directed at a decision refusing a special appeal. In that context, a manifestly inappropriate application did not interrupt the proper agravo period; the judgment preserved a limited exception for a decision so generic that it prevented identifying the appropriate challenge.
That is a special higher-appeal admissibility setting. It does not establish that every rejected application against an ordinary sentence lacks interruptive effect. C046.
https://scon.stj.jus.br/SCON/GetInteiroTeorDoAcordao?dt_publicacao=27/04/2026&num_registro=202504269931 STJ
5.4 The opponent’s own clarification window is not restarted
In AgInt no AREsp 1.704.464-SP, the Fourth Panel held that one party’s clarification application does not interrupt the opponent’s period to file its own embargos de declaração against the same original decision.
The distinction is:
- other appeals from the decision: qualifying interruption can apply;
- the opponent’s own five-day clarification application against that same original decision: not reopened merely because the first party filed;
- a genuine new defect in the later clarification decision: a different target, requiring its own timely classification.
C047, C049.
https://scon.stj.jus.br/SCON/GetInteiroTeorDoAcordao?dt_publicacao=07/06/2021&num_registro=202001189102 STJ+1
5.5 Not every procedural duty is an appeal period
In EDcl no AgInt no AREsp 2.324.702-SP, the Fourth Panel rejected the proposition that clarification applications automatically interrupted a period to pay court preparation expenses.
Article 1.026 does not, merely because an application was filed, stop every period for compliance, payment, evidence or enforcement opposition. The actual type of period and any stay order must be identified. C048.
https://scon.stj.jus.br/SCON/GetInteiroTeorDoAcordao?dt_publicacao=29/11/2024&num_registro=202300763074 STJ
5.6 Repeated applications
A later application must identify a defect in the decision it properly challenges. Repetition of an argument already answered is not automatically a new omission.
Neither of these propositions is justified:
- “Every second application is forbidden.”
- “Every successive application restarts all clocks indefinitely.”
Timeliness, genuine defect, manifest inadmissibility and art. 1.026 §§2–4 must be checked separately. C049, C056–C059. Planalto+1
6. Suspension and enforcement assumptions
6.1 No automatic suspension
Article 1.026 expressly says that embargos de declaração do not have suspensive effect.
Interruption of an appeal period therefore does not automatically:
- freeze collection;
- suspend provisional relief;
- stop enforcement;
- reverse a transfer;
- restore property;
- cancel a debt; or
- remove an existing payment duty.
The underlying decision may have its own effect or a separate stay may exist, but neither is assumed here. C050, C071. Planalto
6.2 Actual suspension standard
Article 1.026 §1 permits the relevant judge or relator to suspend the effectiveness of a single-judge or collegiate decision where the applicant demonstrates:
Alternative A: probability that the application will succeed; or
Alternative B: relevant grounds and risk of grave harm or harm difficult to repair.
The provision is disjunctive. It should not be rewritten as a single universally cumulative test. A request is not a granted stay, and the extent of any suspension comes from the actual order. C051.
Primary URL:
https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2015-2018/2015/lei/l13105compilada.htm, art. 1.026 §1. Planalto
7. Prequestionamento: conditional preservation, not admission insurance
7.1 Article 1.025
Article 1.025 treats elements raised in the application as included in the acórdão for prequestioning purposes even if the application is inadmitted or rejected if the higher court considers that an error, omission, contradiction or obscurity existed.
Merely listing statutory numbers does not compel that finding. The rule does not establish every other requirement of a special or extraordinary appeal. C052, C072. Planalto
7.2 STJ procedural qualification
The June 2026 judgment in EDcl no AgInt no REsp 2.246.507-SP explains that reliance on the art. 1.025 mechanism in a special appeal requires the appropriate allegation of violation of art. 1.022 so the STJ can examine the claimed defect. The judgment did not accept a generalized request to revisit the merits.
C053.
https://scon.stj.jus.br/SCON/GetInteiroTeorDoAcordao?dt_publicacao=30/06/2026&num_registro=202504627615 STJ
7.3 Súmula 98 and its limit
STJ Súmula 98 provides that clarification applications with a genuine, evident prequestioning purpose do not have a dilatory character.
The official entry was read. It is an ordinary STJ súmula, not a certification that any filing labeled “prequestionamento” is protected. C054.
https://scon.stj.jus.br/SCON/sumstj/doc.jsp?b=SUMU&h=true&i=1&l=10&livre=SUMULA+INPATH(TIPO)+AND+98+INPATH(NUM)&ordenacao=-@NUM,-@DOCN&p=false STJ
In AREsp 3.046.697-MT, the STJ held that a new thesis not raised in the earlier appeal or addressed in the challenged decision did not obtain Súmula 98 protection merely by being introduced as prequestioning. C055.
https://scon.stj.jus.br/SCON/GetInteiroTeorDoAcordao?dt_publicacao=30/03/2026&num_registro=202503511011 STJ
8. Dilatory applications, fines and advance deposit
8.1 First sanction branch
Under art. 1.026 §2, where the application is manifestly dilatory, the judge or tribunal must make a reasoned decision imposing a fine payable to the opposing party, not exceeding 2% of the updated value of the case.
The base is not automatically the debt principal, an installment, the disputed balance or the economic benefit later awarded. Rejection alone is not a substitute for the required finding of manifest delay. C056. Planalto
8.2 Repetition
For repeated manifestly dilatory applications, §3 provides:
- elevation of the fine up to 10% of the updated case value; and
- advance deposit of the fine as a condition for another appeal.
The Fazenda Pública and a beneficiary of gratuidade da justiça pay at the end instead of making that advance deposit. They are not declared immune from the fine. C057–C058. Planalto
8.3 Two previous applications deemed dilatory
Section 4 bars new clarification applications if the previous two were considered dilatory.
The predicate is not merely “two applications were rejected.” The actual findings and procedural sequence matter. C059. Planalto
8.4 First fine versus mandatory predeposit: authorities and tension
The read March 2026 Third Panel and June 2026 Fourth Panel judgments expressly hold that a fine on the first clarification application does not, by itself, trigger §3’s advance-deposit condition. The June decision reversed an appellate admission barrier based on failure to pay that first fine. C060. STJ+1
A different April 2026 Third Panel judgment uses broader wording supporting predeposit and upheld the challenged result. It also held that the argument against requiring the deposit had been raised too late, only in the later agravo, rather than in the special appeal.
That decision is not silently discarded or treated as proof that the statutory first/repeated distinction vanished. Its preservation/preclusion posture is material. The report does not claim a complete harmonization of every later case or permission to disregard an existing deposit order. C061, C074. STJ
Relevant full URLs:
The actual sanction decision, whether an earlier application was deemed dilatory, legal-aid status and the preserved challenge must be obtained before applying this distinction.
9. Other narrow statutory boundaries
Article 1.005 can extend a co-party’s appeal benefit to others unless their interests differ or conflict; for passive solidarity, its common-defense qualification applies. This is not the same as interruption of the other party’s filing period, and it does not establish substantive solidarity. C062.
Article 1.006’s five-day return of the record after certified finality is a clerk’s duty. It is not another five-day opportunity to file clarification applications. C063.
Primary URL: CPC arts. 1.005–1.006,
https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2015-2018/2015/lei/l13105compilada.htm. Planalto
10. Published authority map
All judgments below are generic published judicial authorities. No actual party’s docket or pleadings were searched.
| Authority |
Court, disposition and dates |
Narrow proposition and limit |
| AgInt no REsp 2.058.380-AM |
Fourth Panel, unanimous; judgment May 12, 2026; DJEN June 15. |
Timely qualifying applications interrupt even if the alleged defect is rejected; late, manifestly inadmissible or defect-free reconsideration branches differ. Full-judgment passages read. |
| REsp 2.265.902-PI |
Second Panel, unanimous; session ended June 17, 2026; DJEN June 23. |
Reinforces the distinction between unsuccessful clarification and loss of interruption. Not a blanket promise for every repeated filing. |
| EDcl no AgInt no REsp 2.246.507-SP |
Second Panel, unanimous; June 24, 2026; DJEN June 30. |
No merits reargument without defect; conditional art. 1.025/1.022 higher-appeal boundary. |
| AREsp 2.871.314-SP |
Third Panel, unanimous; session ended October 13, 2025; acórdão October 14; DJEN October 16. Appeal not known. |
Earlier hearing on the same application in the remand setting mattered; factual re-examination was barred. Not a universal no-notice exception. |
| EDcl no AgInt no REsp 1.742.315-CE |
First Panel, unanimous; May 25, 2026; DJEN May 28. |
Internal contradiction versus dissatisfaction; reasons must be read as a whole. |
| AgInt no AREsp 2.856.424-MG |
Third Panel, unanimous; session ended April 22, 2026; acórdão April 23; DJEN April 27. |
Broad deposit language plus a material innovation/preclusion holding. Preserved as an adverse qualification, not generalized beyond its posture. |
| AREsp 3.046.697-MT |
Third Panel, unanimous; session ended March 23, 2026; acórdão March 26; DJEN March 30. |
First fine does not itself require advance deposit; new merits thesis was not protected merely as prequestioning. |
| AREsp 3.120.570-RJ |
Fourth Panel, unanimous; session ended June 15, 2026; DJEN June 19. |
Reversed refusal to consider an appeal based solely on unpaid fine from the first clarification application. |
| EDcl no AgInt no AREsp 2.324.702-SP |
Fourth Panel, unanimous; November 25, 2024; publication metadata November 29. |
Clarification does not automatically interrupt preparation-payment time; reasoned dilatory finding and fine in that record. |
| AgInt no AREsp 1.704.464-SP |
Fourth Panel, unanimous; May 31, 2021; DJe June 7. |
One party’s application does not restart the opponent’s own clarification period against the same original decision. |
| REsp 2.269.854-PA |
Third Panel, unanimous; August 12, 2026; DJEN August 17. |
Material omission concerning participation before modification required renewed examination at origin, not automatic merits victory. |
| AgInt no AREsp 3.092.975-RJ |
Third Panel, unanimous; session ended April 22, 2026; acórdão April 23; DJEN April 27. |
Manifestly improper filings in the special-appeal gate did not preserve the correct appeal period; special context remains limited. |
C010, C019, C022, C035, C043–C049, C053–C061, C064.
The dates above distinguish session, judgment-document and publication dates. No repetitive-theme status, finality certificate, universal temporal modulation or exhaustive later treatment is claimed for these panel judgments. The full URLs and page limits are in the source register.
11. Fourteen fictional workflows
All facts, amounts and procedural acts below are invented. No actual filing, deadline, fine or decision validity is determined.
| Workflow |
Facts and governing claims |
Conditional result, adverse branch and missing proof |
| H01 — Obscurity |
The disposition says “pay the adjusted amount” but the decision contains two incompatible references to what “adjusted” means. C009, C033. |
Identify the exact ambiguous command and request clarification. A clear but unfavorable calculation is a different case. Need the complete decision and incorporated calculation. |
| H02 — Internal contradiction |
Reasons state that Component A was not proved; disposition expressly awards Component A without reconciliation. C010. |
Potential internal contradiction. Disagreement with outside evidence alone is not this defect. Need the complete reasons, dispositive text and any incorporated findings. |
| H03 — Omitted material issue |
A properly raised, potentially dispositive objection receives no decision. C011, C016. |
Potential omission. An immaterial or already implicitly resolved point may not qualify. Identify where it was raised and why resolution could change the result. |
| H04 — Applicable thesis or precedent omitted |
A party identifies an applicable repetitive-case thesis; the decision neither addresses it nor explains why it is inapplicable. C012–C018. |
Potential statutory omission. Need the actual thesis, ratio and factual fit; merely citing a case number does not prove applicability. |
| H05 — Arithmetic or typing error |
The court expressly adopts two amounts but transcribes a total inconsistent with its stated arithmetic, or misidentifies a party through a typographical mistake. C020–C021. |
Correction may be appropriate. Replacing an intentionally selected interest rate or valuation method is not automatically clerical correction. Need the adopted inputs and intended command. |
| H06 — Merely adverse merits/new theory |
The party repeats the rejected interpretation and introduces an old factual theory omitted from its earlier submissions. C022, C055. |
Not automatically a clarification defect. A genuine omitted required issue is an alternative branch. Need the earlier pleadings and actual reasoning. |
| H07 — Requested modifying effect |
Correcting an omitted payment entry could reduce the award. C034–C041. |
The opponent must have the statutory opportunity to respond if modification may result. Need the evidence already in issue, the requested correction and hearing record. |
| H08 — Timely interruption |
A timely application identifies an actual statutory category; it is later rejected because no defect is found. C042–C043. |
Another appeal period ordinarily restarts after proper intimation of the decision. A late or manifestly improper filing changes the result. Need notification and filing certificates. |
| H09 — Untimely application |
The filing occurs after the applicable five-business-day period, without an established exception. C044. |
It does not interrupt the other appeal period under the read STJ rule. Need the lawful trigger, calendar, privileges and any accepted just cause. |
| H10 — Repeated/dilatory filing |
Two earlier applications were expressly found dilatory; another repeats the same answered issue. C056–C059. |
Section 4’s barrier and sanction questions arise. Two simple rejections without dilatory findings are not the same predicate. Need every earlier order and sanction finding. |
| H11 — Assumed enforcement freeze |
A party files clarification and tells a creditor that all enforcement has automatically stopped. C050–C051, C071. |
That conclusion is unsupported. Need the original decision’s effect and any granted stay; filing alone is not suspension. |
| H12 — Prequestioning |
A party cites several articles “for prequestionamento” without identifying a defect. C052–C055. |
No automatic preservation or higher-appeal admission. Need the omitted issue, the proper higher-appeal allegation and the higher court’s defect finding. |
| H13 — Opponent waits for first application |
Party A files within five days. Party B waits until A’s application is decided before attacking a defect in the same original decision. C047. |
B’s original clarification window is not automatically revived. A new defect in the clarification decision is a separate target. Need both decision texts and notice dates. |
| H14 — No preparo versus existing fee order |
A party files clarification while an existing order requires payment of preparation for another appeal. C032, C048. |
The clarification itself needs no preparo, but does not automatically interrupt the separate payment duty. Need the exact payment order and any suspension. |
Workflow count: 14.
12. Three conditional date and monetary models
These models use stipulated lawful events. No court calendar, notice, system outage, actual case value or fee was checked.
T01 — Five-business-day clarification period
Assumptions: Ordinary period; no doubling; a valid electronic-journal route; no holiday, closure, recess or interruption.
- Availability: Friday, February 27, 2026.
- Deemed publication: Monday, March 2, 2026.
- Day 1: Tuesday, March 3.
- Day 2: Wednesday, March 4.
- Day 3: Thursday, March 5.
- Day 4: Friday, March 6.
- Day 5: Monday, March 9.
Five business days after the stipulated publication = March 3, 4, 5, 6 and 9
If March 6 is instead an applicable court closure, with all other assumptions unchanged:
Conditional fifth business day = Tuesday, March 10, 2026
The exact last filing instant depends on the court timezone, channel and actual system rules. C066.
Sources: CPC arts. 219, 224, 1.003 and 1.023; Lei 11.419 art. 4. Planalto+2
T02 — Full restart of another ordinary appeal period
Assumptions:
- A timely qualifying clarification application was filed on Thursday, March 5, 2026.
- Its decision is validly intimated on Monday, March 9, 2026.
- The separate available appeal has an ordinary 15-business-day period under art. 1.003 §5.
- No privilege, holiday, closure or further qualifying event applies.
Restart:
- March 10–13: days 1–4.
- March 16–20: days 5–9.
- March 23–27: days 10–14.
- March 30: day 15.
Restarted full period = 15 business days, ending Monday, March 30, 2026
It is not merely the unused remainder of the earlier period. If March 20 is an applicable closure, the conditional endpoint becomes Tuesday, March 31.
This does not restart the opponent’s own clarification window against the same original decision, does not stop a separate payment order, and is not an actual appeal deadline. C067. Planalto+2
T03 — Fine ceilings and a stipulated judicial percentage
Fictional updated case value: R$50,000.00.
This is not an actual debt balance, award or fee.
First manifestly dilatory finding
Statutory ceiling:
R$50,000.00 × 0.02 = R$1,000.00 maximum under §2
If a reasoned hypothetical order selects 1%:
R$50,000.00 × 0.01 = R$500.00
Repeated manifestly dilatory finding
Statutory ceiling:
R$50,000.00 × 0.10 = R$5,000.00 maximum under §3
If a reasoned hypothetical repeated-filing order selects 8%:
R$50,000.00 × 0.08 = R$4,000.00
No rounding is required. The percentages are a judicial-choice assumption within the verified ceilings, not mandatory rates.
The example does not add R$500 and R$4,000: replacement, elevation, credit and collection must be determined from the actual sanction orders. Advance deposit requires the relevant §3 predicate, with its statutory payment-at-end exceptions. A rejected application without a reasoned dilatory finding does not produce these numbers. C068. Planalto+1
13. Exact P01 D15 crosswalk
Preserved literal record
| # |
Named deferred family |
Gateway reference/status |
Exact next research action |
| D15 |
Court/service/default/judgment/appeal beyond capacity |
C027, C030; Deferred |
Map CPC, local procedure, notice, default and appeal rules in a separate litigation review. |
Original coordinator status remains explicit_deferred_hold_preserved.
PASS-21 narrow dispositions
| D15 portion |
Narrow result |
Remaining gate |
| Clarifiable decision and defect |
Arts. 1.022 and 489 predicates identified. |
Actual complete decision, relevant argument and required issue. |
| Actor, forum and form |
Standing, representation, issuing body and defect-specific petition identified. |
Actual mandate, interest and local filing rules. |
| Filing period and preparation |
Ordinary five-business-day period and no-preparo rule identified. |
Actual notice, privileges, calendar and channel. |
| Opponent participation/modification |
Five-day response and modifying-effect safeguards identified. |
Actual hearing record and precise requested change. |
| Other appeals |
Interruption, no-ratification and limited supplementation distinguished. |
Actual other remedy and its notification history. |
| Stay and sanctions |
No automatic stay; specific suspension/fine/deposit predicates identified. |
Actual order, recurrence, aid status and preserved challenge. |
| Prequestioning |
Conditional art. 1.025/STJ boundary identified. |
Full higher-appeal admissibility remains separate. |
| Other D15 portions |
Service, default merits, full appeals, reopening and enforcement not completed here. |
Separate review; no sibling adoption. |
Crosswalk count: nine logical items and nine physical data rows—one preserved record plus eight dispositions.
14. Source register
Access metadata for every row: October 27, 2026 in Pacific time and UTC. Exact source-opening clocks unknown.
“Full-judgment PDF” identifies the published document accessed; it does not certify that every unrelated passage or every authority quoted inside it was independently reviewed.
| Source ID |
Issuer/title and complete literal URL |
Actual read, status, dates and limits |
| C_BR-P21-S001 |
Presidência, CPC, Lei 13.105/2015, compiled. https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2015-2018/2015/lei/l13105compilada.htm |
Fresh operative selected body. Arts. 9–11, 14, 17, 103, 180, 183, 186, 203–204, 213, 216, 218–224, 229, 272, 489, 494, 994–996, 1.001, 1.003, 1.005–1.006, 1.021 §1, 1.022–1.026, 1.045 and footer. DOU March 17, 2015; one-year original vacatio. HTML; printed page/PDF index N/A. No full service, appeal, enforcement or amendment-chain certification. |
| S002 |
Presidência, Lei 11.419/2006. https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2004-2006/2006/lei/l11419.htm |
Fresh electronic-procedure crossover. Arts. 2–5, 10, 22/footer. DOU December 20, 2006; 90-day original vacatio. Journal, filing and outage boundary only; current CNJ/local implementation held. HTML; page/index N/A. |
| S003 |
Presidência, Lei 14.939/2024. https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2023-2026/2024/lei/l14939.htm |
Fresh amendment. Arts. 1–2/footer; art. 1.003 §6 holiday-proof correction. DOU July 31, 2024; effect on publication. HTML; page/index N/A. |
| S004 |
Presidência, Lei 15.479/2026. https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2023-2026/2026/lei/l15479.htm |
Fresh enacted-future boundary. Relevant amendments, art. 4/footer. DOU July 30, 2026; one-year vacatio. Not applied as current clarification law. HTML; page/index N/A. |
| S005 |
Presidência, Lei 15.484/2026. https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2023-2026/2026/lei/l15484.htm |
Fresh limited higher-appeal boundary. Relevant amendment and arts. 4–7/footer. DOU extra August 4, 2026; 30-day vacatio, operative by access. No replacement of arts. 1.022–1.026 identified in this body. Full special-appeal implementation held. |
| S006 |
STJ, AgInt no REsp 2.058.380-AM. https://scon.stj.jus.br/SCON/GetInteiroTeorDoAcordao?dt_publicacao=15/06/2026&num_registro=202300665947 |
Fresh published judgment, selected body. Fourth Panel unanimous; May 12, 2026; DJEN June 15. 13 PDF pages. Ementa/disposition zero-indices 0–1; relevant reasons 5–6. Screenshots 0–1 inspected. Printed folios not displayed on inspected pages. Interruption and admissibility distinctions only. |
| S007 |
STJ, REsp 2.265.902-PI. https://scon.stj.jus.br/SCON/GetInteiroTeorDoAcordao?dt_publicacao=23/06/2026&num_registro=202601240917 |
Fresh published judgment, selected body. Second Panel unanimous; June 17, 2026; DJEN June 23. 9 pages. Ementa/result 0–1, reasons 5–6; screenshot 1 inspected. Printed folios not displayed there. No universal approval of repeated filings. |
| S008 |
STJ, EDcl no AgInt no REsp 2.246.507-SP. https://scon.stj.jus.br/SCON/GetInteiroTeorDoAcordao?dt_publicacao=30/06/2026&num_registro=202504627615 |
Fresh published judgment, selected body. Second Panel unanimous; June 24, 2026; DJEN June 30. 7 pages. Ementa index 0 and reasons 3–4; screenshot 0 inspected. Merits-reargument and prequestioning boundary. |
| S009 |
STJ, AREsp 2.871.314-SP. https://scon.stj.jus.br/SCON/GetInteiroTeorDoAcordao?num_registro=202500718848 |
Fresh published judgment, selected body. Third Panel unanimous; session ended October 13, 2025; acórdão October 14; DJEN October 16. 12 pages. Ementa/result 0–1, reasons 5–6; screenshot 1 inspected. Prior participation in a remand setting; factual re-examination barred. Not a general notice waiver. |
| S010 |
STJ, EDcl no AgInt no REsp 1.742.315-CE. https://scon.stj.jus.br/SCON/GetInteiroTeorDoAcordao?dt_publicacao=28/05/2026&num_registro=201801189603 |
Fresh published judgment, selected body. First Panel unanimous; May 25, 2026; DJEN May 28. 14 pages. Relevant ementa/reason discussion in indices 0–3 and subsequent reasons; screenshot 1 inspected. Internal contradiction and sufficient-reasons boundary. |
| S011 |
STJ, AgInt no AREsp 2.856.424-MG. https://scon.stj.jus.br/SCON/GetInteiroTeorDoAcordao?dt_publicacao=27/04/2026&num_registro=202500487359 |
Fresh published judgment, selected body. Third Panel unanimous; session ended April 22, 2026; acórdão April 23; DJEN April 27. 12 pages. Ementa 0–1, reasons 4–8; screenshot 1 inspected. Broad deposit language retained with material innovation/preclusion limit. |
| S012 |
STJ, AREsp 3.046.697-MT. https://scon.stj.jus.br/SCON/GetInteiroTeorDoAcordao?dt_publicacao=30/03/2026&num_registro=202503511011 |
Fresh published judgment, selected body. Third Panel unanimous; session ended March 23, 2026; acórdão March 26; DJEN March 30. 14 pages. Ementa 0–1 and deposit/prequestioning reasons; screenshot 0 inspected. First-fine deposit and new-thesis limitations. |
| S013 |
STJ, AREsp 3.120.570-RJ. https://scon.stj.jus.br/SCON/GetInteiroTeorDoAcordao?num_registro=202504691363 |
Fresh published judgment, selected body. Fourth Panel unanimous; session ended June 15, 2026; DJEN June 19. 10 pages. Ementa/result 0, reasons 3–6; screenshot 0 inspected. First-fine predeposit barrier rejected. No general authorization to ignore an existing order. |
| S014 |
STJ, EDcl no AgInt no AREsp 2.324.702-SP. https://scon.stj.jus.br/SCON/GetInteiroTeorDoAcordao?dt_publicacao=29/11/2024&num_registro=202300763074 |
Fresh parsed judgment body. Fourth Panel unanimous; November 25, 2024; retrieval publication metadata November 29. 7 pages. Relevant text indices 2–4; majority/session certificate 5–6. Screenshot attempt timed out: no pixel-review claim. Preparation-payment period and reasoned fine only; text was readable. |
| S015 |
STJ, AgInt no AREsp 1.704.464-SP. https://scon.stj.jus.br/SCON/GetInteiroTeorDoAcordao?dt_publicacao=07/06/2021&num_registro=202001189102 |
Fresh published judgment, selected body. Fourth Panel unanimous; May 31, 2021; DJe June 7. 9 PDF pages. Ementa/result index 0; reasons indices 3–5, displaying internal printed pages 3–5. Screenshot 0 inspected. Opponent’s own clarification window distinguished from other appeals. |
| S016 |
STJ, REsp 2.269.854-PA. https://scon.stj.jus.br/SCON/GetInteiroTeorDoAcordao?dt_publicacao=17/08/2026&num_registro=202601342351 |
Fresh published judgment, selected body. Third Panel unanimous; August 12, 2026; DJEN August 17. 7 pages. Ementa/result 0; reasons 3–4; screenshot 0 inspected. Material omission/remand, not an actual merits ruling for the present user. |
| S017 |
STJ, AgInt no AREsp 3.092.975-RJ. https://scon.stj.jus.br/SCON/GetInteiroTeorDoAcordao?dt_publicacao=27/04/2026&num_registro=202504269931 |
Fresh published judgment, selected body. Third Panel unanimous; session ended April 22, 2026; acórdão April 23; DJEN April 27. 12 pages. Ementa/result 0–1 and relevant later reasons; screenshot 0 inspected. Special-appeal gate and manifest-inadmissibility boundary only. |
| S018 |
STJ, Súmula 98, official entry. https://scon.stj.jus.br/SCON/sumstj/doc.jsp?b=SUMU&h=true&i=1&l=10&livre=SUMULA+INPATH(TIPO)+AND+98+INPATH(NUM)&ordenacao=-@NUM,-@DOCN&p=false |
Fresh official súmula text. Corte Especial, April 14, 1994; DJ April 25, 1994, printed p. 9284. HTML; PDF index N/A. Genuine prequestioning/non-dilatory proposition; no exhaustive underlying-case review. |
| S019 |
STF, Tema 339 official route. https://portal.stf.jus.br/jurisprudenciaRepercussao/verAndamentoProcesso.asp?classeProcesso=AI&incidente=3849248&numeroProcesso=791292&numeroTema=339 |
Failed body. No original full judgment or majority certification from this route. One official alternate, S020, was read. Page/index unknown. |
| S020 |
STF, official published decision reproducing Tema 339. https://portal.stf.jus.br/servicos/dje/verDiarioProcesso.asp?codCapitulo=6&codMateria=3&dataPublicacaoDj=09/08/2022&incidente=6327532&numDj=157&numMateria=145 |
Fresh official monocratic publication, limited attributed reproduction. August 9, 2022 publication; relevant passage reproduces the concise-reasons proposition and references the original 2010 theme. It is not a fresh read of the original full constitutional merits judgment. HTML; printed page/PDF index N/A. |
Source-register count: 20: five statutory bodies; twelve STJ published judgment documents; one STJ súmula; one failed STF route; and one official STF alternative containing an attributed quotation.
Eleven of the twelve judgment PDFs had relevant screenshots inspected. S014’s parsed text was read, but its screenshot attempt failed. No image-based assertion is made from that failed rendering.
15. Atomic claim/evidence register
All IDs are C_BR-P21-Cxxx. Source IDs refer to the complete literal URLs in the register. A097 concerns actor/capacity; A098 concerns procedural rights, timing, effects and limitations.
| Claim |
Atomic proposition and retained qualification |
Evidence |
| C001 |
A098. CPC commencement and procedural transition are distinct from publication/access clocks; no exact effective date calculated. |
S001 arts. 14, 1045/footer. |
| C002 |
A098. The current local-holiday proof correction rule is the publication-effective 2024 amendment. |
S003 arts. 1–2; S001 art. 1003 §6. |
| C003 |
A098. Lei 15.479/2026 remains enacted-future at access and is not applied here. |
S004 art. 4/footer. |
| C004 |
A098. Lei 15.484/2026 is operative by access but does not substitute for arts. 1022–1026 or guarantee higher-appeal admission. |
S005 arts. 3–7. |
| C005 |
A098. A judicial decisional act can be clarified; a genuine non-decisional despacho is different. |
S001 arts. 203–204, 1001, 1022. |
| C006 |
A098. Embargos are a statutory appeal category, not an unrestricted reconsideration request. |
S001 art. 994(IV),1022; S006,S017. |
| C007 |
A097. Standing and procedural interest require the applicable party/third-party/MP predicate. |
S001 arts. 17,996. |
| C008 |
A097. Ordinary legal representation is governed by art. 103; no adviser authority inferred. |
S001 art. 103. |
| C009 |
A098. Obscurity permits clarification of unclear judicial meaning. |
S001 art. 1022(I). |
| C010 |
A098. Relevant contradiction is internal to the decision, not mere disagreement with its outcome. |
S001 art. 1022(I); S010. |
| C011 |
A098. Omission concerns a point the judge had to decide ex officio or on request. |
S001 art. 1022(II). |
| C012 |
A098. Failure to address an applicable repetitive-case or IAC thesis is a specified omission. |
S001 art. 1022 sole paragraph(I). |
| C013 |
A098. Bare statutory reproduction without case connection is a reasoning defect. |
S001 art. 489 §1(I). |
| C014 |
A098. Unexplained use of an indeterminate concept is a reasoning defect. |
S001 art. 489 §1(II). |
| C015 |
A098. Generic reasons fitting any decision are inadequate. |
S001 art. 489 §1(III). |
| C016 |
A098. Potentially outcome-changing arguments require examination. |
S001 art. 489 §1(IV). |
| C017 |
A098. Invoked precedent requires determining rationale and demonstrated fit. |
S001 art. 489 §1(V). |
| C018 |
A098. Departure from invoked authority requires distinction or overruling explanation. |
S001 art. 489 §1(VI). |
| C019 |
A098. Brevity is not itself omission; the constitutional proposition is used only as reproduced in the read official decision. |
S020; S009–S010. |
| C020 |
A098. Material error may be corrected; a deliberate legal choice is not automatically clerical error. |
S001 arts. 494(I),1022(III). |
| C021 |
A098. An art. 494 correction request is not automatically an interruptive statutory appeal. |
S001 arts. 494,1023–1026; limited inference. |
| C022 |
A098. Mere adverse merits or a new old-fact theory does not establish a clarification defect. |
S008,S012. |
| C023 |
A097. Petition goes to the body responsible for the decision, not automatically a higher tribunal. |
S001 arts. 1023–1024. |
| C024 |
A098. Ordinary filing period is five business days from the applicable lawful intimation. |
S001 arts. 219,1003,1023. |
| C025 |
A098. Designated-counsel and defective-intimation rules require the actual notification record. |
S001 art. 272. |
| C026 |
A098. Journal availability, publication and first counting day are distinct. |
S002 art. 4 §§3–4; S001 art.224. |
| C027 |
A098. Recess, closure, qualifying suspension and just cause must be separately established. |
S001 arts. 216,219–224. |
| C028 |
A098. Article229 doubling applies by1023§1 but excludes electronic proceedings and has statutory conditions. |
S001 arts.229,1023§1. |
| C029 |
A098. Institutional doubled periods/personal notification depend on exact public-law/MP/Defensoria predicates. |
S001 arts.180,183,186. |
| C030 |
A098. Holiday-proof correction does not create a holiday or cure actual lateness by itself. |
S003; S001 art.1003§6. |
| C031 |
A098. Electronic final-hour and outage treatment require court-timezone/system facts. |
S001 art.213; S002 arts.3,10. |
| C032 |
A098. Embargos require no preparo; that does not waive all costs, fines or other payment duties. |
S001 art.1023; S014. |
| C033 |
A098. Petition must identify the specific error, obscurity, contradiction or omission. |
S001 art.1023. |
| C034 |
A098. Possible modifying relief requires opponent notification and five-day response opportunity. |
S001 art.1023§2. |
| C035 |
A098. The read prior-hearing/remand cases have different records and do not create a universal notice exception. |
S009 indices5–6; S016 indices0,3–4. |
| C036 |
A098. Judge’s five-day decision period is not an automatic grant or new party deadline. |
S001 art.1024 caput. |
| C037 |
A098. Tribunal processing and single-judge clarification follow1024§§1–2. |
S001 art.1024§§1–2. |
| C038 |
A098. Conversion to agravo interno requires prior five-day opportunity to adapt reasons. |
S001 art.1024§3. |
| C039 |
A098. Opponent’s already-filed appeal may be amended within15days, strictly within the modification. |
S001 art.1024§4. |
| C040 |
A098. If rejected or unchanged, the other party’s earlier appeal requires no ratification. |
S001 art.1024§5. |
| C041 |
A098. Modifying effects must result from curing the identified defect, not unrestricted merits reconsideration. |
S001 arts.1022–1024; S008–S009. |
| C042 |
A098. A qualifying filing interrupts other appeal periods, which restart in full after lawful intimation. |
S001 art.1026; S006–S007,S015. |
| C043 |
A098. Timely rejection for absence of the alleged defect does not by itself remove interruption. |
S006–S007. |
| C044 |
A098. Untimely applications do not interrupt other appeal periods under the read STJ rule. |
S006,S015. |
| C045 |
A098. Manifestly inadmissible or defect-free reconsideration filings do not reliably produce interruption. |
S006,S017. |
| C046 |
A098. The special-appeal admissibility-decision qualification is context-specific, not a universal ordinary-court rule. |
S017 indices0–1. |
| C047 |
A098. One party’s filing does not restart the opponent’s own clarification period against the same original decision. |
S015 indices0,3–5. |
| C048 |
A098. Article1026 does not automatically interrupt a preparation-payment or other non-appeal compliance period. |
S014 indices3–4. |
| C049 |
A098. A later application needs a genuine defect in its proper target; repetition is neither always barred nor always interruptive. |
S001 art.1026§§2–4; S015. |
| C050 |
A098. Embargos have no automatic suspensive effect. |
S001 art.1026 caput. |
| C051 |
A098. Stay may follow probability of success OR relevant grounds plus grave/difficult harm; actual order required. |
S001 art.1026§1. |
| C052 |
A098. Article1025 inclusion for prequestioning depends on a higher court finding a qualifying defect. |
S001 art.1025. |
| C053 |
A098. The read STJ judgment requires the appropriate1022-violation allegation for its1025 special-appeal mechanism. |
S008. |
| C054 |
A098. Genuine evident prequestioning is not dilatory under Súmula98. |
S018. |
| C055 |
A098. Introducing a previously unraised theory is not protected merely by the prequestioning label. |
S012 ementa item6. |
| C056 |
A098. Manifest delay requires a reasoned finding; first-branch fine is payable to opponent and capped at2% of updated case value. |
S001 art.1026§2. |
| C057 |
A098. Repeated manifest delay permits elevation up to10% of updated case value. |
S001 art.1026§3. |
| C058 |
A098. The repeated-delay branch conditions later appeal on deposit; Fazenda/aid beneficiaries pay at end, not never. |
S001 art.1026§3. |
| C059 |
A098. Two previous applications deemed dilatory trigger the bar on new clarification applications. |
S001 art.1026§4. |
| C060 |
A098. The read March/June2026 judgments reject automatic advance deposit merely from a first fine. |
S012–S013. |
| C061 |
A098. The adverse April2026 deposit judgment also turned on late innovation; broad wording is not erased or universally extended. |
S011 indices0–1,7–8. |
| C062 |
A098. Co-party benefit under1005 differs from interruption and does not establish substantive solidarity. |
S001 art.1005. |
| C063 |
A098. Article1006’s five-day return is a clerk duty, not a new clarification window. |
S001 art.1006. |
| C064 |
A098. Read published authorities have stated majority/posture limits; no exhaustive citator or universal modulation claim. |
S006–S020. |
| C065 |
A098. No actual fine, payment, authority, notice or outcome was determined. |
Research boundary. |
| C066 |
A098. T01 is conditional on the stipulated journal events, ordinary period and calendar. |
S001,S002; fictional inputs. |
| C067 |
A098. T02 models another appeal’s full restart, not the opponent’s original clarification window or payment duties. |
S001,S015,S014; fictional inputs. |
| C068 |
A098. T03 uses statutory ceilings and fictional updated case value; no award or automatic aggregation follows. |
S001 art.1026§§2–3; fictional inputs. |
| C069 |
A098. Current CNJ/local notification implementation remains unexamined in this pass. |
Scope/source limit. |
| C070 |
A097. Procedural knowledge does not confer provider or professional filing authority. |
S001 art.103; separate-regime hold. |
| C071 |
A098. Filing does not automatically cancel debt, vacate judgment or stop collection/enforcement. |
S001 art.1026; scope limit. |
| C072 |
A098. Prequestioning does not guarantee every other higher-appeal admissibility requirement. |
S001 art.1025; S005,S008. |
| C073 |
A098. P01D15 is augmented only for clarification; unreviewed siblings are not premises. |
Supplied review record/scope. |
| C074 |
A098. Actual sanction sequence, preservation and later treatment are required before applying disputed deposit consequences. |
S011–S013; retained application hold. |
Atomic claim count: 74.
16. Granular core coverage
| Row |
Issue |
Claims |
Status and exact remaining action |
| P21-G01 |
Narrow ordinary civil scope |
C005–C006,C073 |
Confirm actual procedure; special branches held. |
| G02 |
CPC currentness/commencement |
C001 |
Selected text read; actual historic case transition held. |
| G03 |
Enacted-future law |
C003 |
Not applied as current clarification law. |
| G04 |
2026 higher-appeal amendment |
C004,C072 |
Separate admissibility module required. |
| G05 |
Holiday-proof amendment |
C002,C030 |
Actual holiday and court record required. |
| G06 |
Judicial decision |
C005 |
Read actual decisional content. |
| G07 |
Sentence |
C005 |
Qualifying defect still required. |
| G08 |
Interlocutory decision |
C005 |
Do not substitute full agravo analysis. |
| G09 |
Appellate single-judge decision |
C023,C037 |
Issuing body decides under1024§2. |
| G10 |
Collegiate acórdão |
C023,C037 |
Relator/session process applies. |
| G11 |
Mere despacho/private communication |
C005 |
Not automatically a clarification target. |
| G12 |
Standing/interest |
C007 |
Actual prejudice and requested correction unknown. |
| G13 |
Representation |
C008,C070 |
Actual mandate/professional status not checked. |
| G14 |
Obscurity |
C009 |
Identify unclear passage. |
| G15 |
Internal contradiction |
C010 |
Identify incompatible parts of the decision. |
| G16 |
External disagreement |
C010,C022 |
Not internal contradiction by itself. |
| G17 |
Material omitted issue |
C011 |
Show duty to decide. |
| G18 |
Ex-officio omission |
C011 |
Identify statutory duty, not a preferred new issue. |
| G19 |
Repetitive/IAC thesis |
C012 |
Prove applicability. |
| G20 |
Bare legislation |
C013 |
Check connection to facts. |
| G21 |
Indeterminate concept |
C014 |
Check concrete explanation. |
| G22 |
Generic reasons |
C015 |
Check decision-specific reasoning. |
| G23 |
Outcome-changing argument |
C016 |
Identify potential effect. |
| G24 |
Precedent fit |
C017 |
Compare rationale and factual premise. |
| G25 |
Departure from invoked authority |
C018 |
Distinction/overruling explanation required. |
| G26 |
Terse decision |
C019 |
Brevity alone does not establish omission. |
| G27 |
Material error |
C020 |
Separate transcription/arithmetic from legal choice. |
| G28 |
Article494 correction request |
C021 |
Do not presume appeal interruption. |
| G29 |
Adverse merits |
C022 |
Proper appeal may differ. |
| G30 |
New factual theory |
C022,C055 |
No automatic clarification route. |
| G31 |
Petition specificity |
C033 |
Passage, defect and requested correction required. |
| G32 |
Competent issuing body |
C023 |
Actual court/decision required. |
| G33 |
Five-day statutory unit |
C024 |
Ordinary business days, not fifteen. |
| G34 |
Lawful notification trigger |
C024–C026 |
Actual certificate/channel unknown. |
| G35 |
Designated counsel |
C025 |
Actual request and publication required. |
| G36 |
Journal sequence |
C026 |
Availability/publication/day one distinct. |
| G37 |
Portal/CNJ channel |
C069 |
Current implementation held. |
| G38 |
Holiday/closure/recess |
C027 |
Actual court calendar required. |
| G39 |
Suspension/just cause |
C027 |
Actual legal predicate and order required. |
| G40 |
Co-party doubled period |
C028 |
Different offices/electronic exception required. |
| G41 |
Institutional privileges |
C029 |
Exact actor and express-period exceptions. |
| G42 |
Holiday-proof cure |
C030 |
No invented holiday or cure of actual lateness. |
| G43 |
Electronic filing/outage |
C031 |
Court clock and official outage record required. |
| G44 |
No preparo |
C032 |
Does not waive separate duties or fines. |
| G45 |
Judge’s five-day decision period |
C036 |
No automatic grant on delay. |
| G46 |
Tribunal next-session process |
C037 |
Actual agenda/local rules held. |
| G47 |
Monocratic processing |
C037 |
Same issuing body. |
| G48 |
Modifying effects |
C041 |
Must follow correction of defect. |
| G49 |
Opponent’s five-day response |
C034 |
Modification possibility triggers hearing. |
| G50 |
Prior-hearing/remand qualification |
C035 |
Actual prior opportunity and prejudice required. |
| G51 |
Conversion to agravo interno |
C038 |
Prior five-day adaptation notice required. |
| G52 |
Changed-result appeal amendment |
C039 |
Fifteen days; exact modification only. |
| G53 |
No ratification when unchanged |
C040 |
Other party’s already-filed appeal branch. |
| G54 |
Full other-appeal restart |
C042 |
Valid filing and new intimation required. |
| G55 |
Timely but rejected application |
C043 |
No loss of interruption merely from rejection. |
| G56 |
Untimely application |
C044 |
No interruption under read rule. |
| G57 |
Manifest inadmissibility |
C045 |
Actual reason for non-admission required. |
| G58 |
Mere reconsideration |
C045 |
Heading cannot manufacture a defect. |
| G59 |
Higher-appeal gate |
C046 |
Special procedural context held. |
| G60 |
Opponent’s own same-decision ED |
C047 |
Original window not automatically restarted. |
| G61 |
Preparation/payment duty |
C048 |
Not an appeal-filing clock. |
| G62 |
Repeated/new defects |
C049 |
Distinguish new decision defect from repetition. |
| G63 |
No automatic suspension |
C050,C071 |
Existing decision remains subject to its own regime. |
| G64 |
Suspension standard |
C051 |
Preserve alternative tests; order required. |
| G65 |
Conditional1025 inclusion |
C052 |
Higher-court defect finding required. |
| G66 |
STJ1022 allegation |
C053 |
Full special appeal remains separate. |
| G67 |
Genuine prequestioning |
C054–C055 |
Label alone insufficient. |
| G68 |
Dilatory character |
C056 |
Reasoned finding, not rejection alone. |
| G69 |
First fine ceiling/base |
C056 |
Up to2%, updated case value. |
| G70 |
Repeated fine ceiling |
C057 |
Up to10%, actual recurrence required. |
| G71 |
Advance deposit |
C058,C060 |
Repeated branch; distinguish first fine. |
| G72 |
Fazenda/legal-aid exception |
C058 |
Payment at end, not immunity. |
| G73 |
First-fine precedents |
C060 |
No automatic deposit from first fine alone. |
| G74 |
Adverse deposit judgment |
C061,C074 |
Preservation/preclusion and full sequence held. |
| G75 |
Two prior dilatory findings |
C059 |
Not two simple rejections. |
| G76 |
Co-party benefit |
C062 |
Separate from filing-period interruption. |
| G77 |
Clerk’s return period |
C063 |
Not a party’s grace period. |
| G78 |
H01 obscurity |
C009,C033 |
Conditional workflow complete. |
| G79 |
H02 internal contradiction |
C010 |
Conditional workflow complete. |
| G80 |
H03 omitted issue |
C011,C016 |
Conditional workflow complete. |
| G81 |
H04 precedent omission |
C012–C018 |
Conditional workflow complete. |
| G82 |
H05 material error |
C020–C021 |
Conditional workflow complete. |
| G83 |
H06 adverse merits |
C022,C055 |
Conditional workflow complete. |
| G84 |
H07 modification/hearing |
C034–C041 |
Conditional workflow complete. |
| G85 |
H08 timely interruption |
C042–C043 |
Conditional workflow complete. |
| G86 |
H09 lateness |
C044 |
Conditional workflow complete. |
| G87 |
H10 repetition |
C056–C059 |
Conditional workflow complete. |
| G88 |
H11 stay assumption |
C050–C051,C071 |
Conditional workflow complete. |
| G89 |
H12 prequestioning |
C052–C055 |
Conditional workflow complete. |
| G90 |
H13 opponent’s window |
C047 |
Conditional workflow complete. |
| G91 |
H14 separate fee duty |
C032,C048 |
Conditional workflow complete. |
| G92 |
T01 five-day model |
C066 |
Hypothetical calendar only. |
| G93 |
T02 full restart model |
C067 |
No actual appeal deadline. |
| G94 |
T03 penalty model |
C068 |
No actual fine/aggregation. |
| G95 |
P01D15 crosswalk |
C073 |
Clarification component only augmented. |
| G96 |
Actual private facts |
C065 |
None examined. |
| G97 |
Sources/current citator |
C064,C074 |
No all-source or harmonization certification. |
| G98 |
Provider/professional authority |
C070 |
Separate and held. |
| G99 |
Local implementation |
C069 |
All state/DF branches held. |
| G100 |
Acceptance/publication |
C073–C074 |
No component, parent or country acceptance. |
Core-coverage count: 100.
17. Separately deferred families
| Row |
Deferred family |
Exact next action |
| P21-D01 |
Commencement and service |
P18 unreviewed; establish actual notice independently. |
| D02 |
Default and first-instance merits |
P19 unreviewed; no default findings adopted. |
| D03 |
Full apelação |
P20 unreviewed; identify actual route and admissibility separately. |
| D04 |
Full agravo interno/instrumento |
Conversion boundary is not a complete agravo report. |
| D05 |
Special and extraordinary appeals |
Examine all current admission requirements independently. |
| D06 |
Constitutional review and full Tema339 treatment |
Obtain original merits body and later controlling treatment. |
| D07 |
Rescisória, querela and reopening |
Identify actual finality, ground, standing, court and period. |
| D08 |
Enforcement, attachment and collection stays |
Actual decision and stay order required. |
| D09 |
Juizados/Lei9.099 |
Apply the special statutory procedure, not analogy. |
| D10 |
Labor, criminal, electoral and administrative proceedings |
Separate procedural statutes and tribunals. |
| D11 |
Full sanctions and deposit litigation |
Obtain complete sanction sequence and preserved objections. |
| D12 |
Consumer contract, fees and cancellation |
P04 remains unreviewed. |
| D13 |
Prescription and substantive debt defenses |
P05 remains unreviewed. |
| D14 |
Payment, release and settlement |
P09 remains unreviewed. |
| D15 |
Collection communications |
P10 remains unreviewed. |
| D16 |
LGPD and credit reporting |
P08 and reporting modules remain separate. |
| D17 |
Surety, solidarity and substantive co-party rights |
P16 unreviewed; art1005 does not establish liability. |
| D18 |
Provider, OAB, financial and payment permission |
No authority follows from procedural rules. |
| D19 |
Security, insolvency and property effects |
No debt cancellation or asset-release opinion. |
| D20 |
Current CNJ/local electronic rules |
Read applicable current channel and implementation. |
| D21 |
Local calendars, fees, forms and court rules |
Obtain competent court instruments and certificates. |
| D22 |
Foreign law, recognition and accessibility |
No foreign or special-access premise adopted. |
| D23 |
Private records and exhaustive citator |
None searched; later authority review required. |
| D24 |
Component/parent/A066/A097/A098/country acceptance |
HOLD pending separate coordinator review and remaining work. |
Deferred-family count: 24.
18. All 27 inherited states and Distrito Federal
The jurisdiction names are inherited from the preserved P01 inventory. No geography API or fresh territorial certification was used. Federal judgments about state-origin cases do not verify those states’ current local rules.
| State/DF |
Local read status |
Exact remaining local question |
| Acre (AC) |
No local operative body read. |
TJAC clarification filing, notice channel, calendar and internal rules. |
| Alagoas (AL) |
No local operative body read. |
TJAL publication, electronic system, closures and forms. |
| Amapá (AP) |
No local operative body read. |
TJAP filing category, notice certification and local calendar. |
| Amazonas (AM) |
No local operative body read. |
TJAM timezone, portal and court closures; federal precedent does not clear them. |
| Bahia (BA) |
No local operative body read. |
TJBA current electronic channel, session rules and calendar. |
| Ceará (CE) |
No local operative body read. |
TJCE publication, forms and closures; cited STJ case supplies no local audit. |
| Distrito Federal (DF) |
No local operative body read. |
TJDFT notice, filing, calendar and internal processing. |
| Espírito Santo (ES) |
No local operative body read. |
TJES electronic procedure and local holidays. |
| Goiás (GO) |
No local operative body read. |
TJGO clarification filing and notice requirements. |
| Maranhão (MA) |
No local operative body read. |
TJMA access, calendars and tribunal sessions. |
| Mato Grosso (MT) |
No local operative body read. |
TJMT local rules; the published penalty case does not certify them. |
| Mato Grosso do Sul (MS) |
No local operative body read. |
TJMS portal, forms, holidays and system-outage rules. |
| Minas Gerais (MG) |
No local operative body read. |
TJMG actual sanction record and local procedure remain unknown. |
| Pará (PA) |
No local operative body read. |
TJPA notice, remand processing and calendar. |
| Paraíba (PB) |
No local operative body read. |
TJPB filing, publication and closure rules. |
| Paraná (PR) |
No local operative body read. |
TJPR current portal, sessions and local holiday proof. |
| Pernambuco (PE) |
No local operative body read. |
TJPE clarification forms and notice calendar. |
| Piauí (PI) |
No local operative body read. |
TJPI local implementation, notwithstanding cited federal procedural authority. |
| Rio de Janeiro (RJ) |
No local operative body read. |
TJRJ notice, filing and actual fine/deposit orders. |
| Rio Grande do Norte (RN) |
No local operative body read. |
TJRN session rules, publication and holidays. |
| Rio Grande do Sul (RS) |
No local operative body read. |
TJRS electronic processing and court calendar. |
| Rondônia (RO) |
No local operative body read. |
TJRO timezone, access and official outages. |
| Roraima (RR) |
No local operative body read. |
TJRR filing, language/access needs and closures. |
| Santa Catarina (SC) |
No local operative body read. |
TJSC portal, notification and session implementation. |
| São Paulo (SP) |
No local operative body read. |
TJSP actual local rules; published STJ authorities are not local certification. |
| Sergipe (SE) |
No local operative body read. |
TJSE forms, publication and court calendar. |
| Tocantins (TO) |
No local operative body read. |
TJTO digital filing, notice and accessibility rules. |
Territorial count: 27; no state or DF branch is cleared.
19. Evidence-backed article, checklist and conditional-tool opportunities
| Specification |
Supported use |
Guardrail |
| Defect classifier |
Link a precise passage to obscurity, internal contradiction, omission or material error. |
Do not treat dissatisfaction as a defect. |
| Omission checklist |
Required issue, material argument, applicable repetitive/IAC thesis and art489 reasoning. |
Do not demand a response to every irrelevant citation. |
| Clarification timeline |
Five-day filing, opponent response, other-appeal interruption and new intimation. |
Keep the opponent’s own same-decision window separate. |
| Modification map |
Identify how curing the defect may change the result and trigger participation. |
No automatic reversal or remand. |
| Penalty-sequence audit |
First versus repeated findings, updated case value, deposit and exceptions. |
Never infer a fine solely from rejection or ignore an existing order. |
| Prequestioning boundary checklist |
Identify the missing issue and conditional1025/1022 pathway. |
No automatic higher-appeal preservation or admission promise. |
No website, filing-ready application, tool or publication was created.
20. Reconciliation and self-check
| Item |
Actual result |
| Assigned component |
P01D15 ordinary civil clarification/correction only. |
| Unreviewed sibling findings used as premises |
None. |
| Source-register rows |
20. |
| Statutory bodies |
5. |
| Published STJ judgment documents |
12, selected relevant passages read. |
| STJ súmula entries |
1. |
| Failed STF original route |
1. |
| Official STF alternative |
1, attributed reproduction only. |
| Successful relevant PDF screenshot sets |
11 judgment documents. |
| PDF rendering limitation |
S014 screenshot timed out; parsed body read, no pixel-review claim. |
| Atomic claims |
74. |
| Core coverage |
100. |
| Deferred families |
24. |
| Territorial rows |
27. |
| Total coverage rows |
151: 100 core + 24 deferred + 27 territorial. |
| Fictional workflows |
14. |
| Conditional models |
3. |
| P01 crosswalk |
9 logical items and 9 physical data rows. |
| Judicial-authority map |
12 rows, not additional sources or coverage. |
| Opportunities |
6 rows, not coverage. |
| Actual deadline, fine, debt or merits outcome |
None determined. |
| Actual party/account/licence/docket investigation |
None. |
| Filing, contact, payment or account action |
None. |
| API, hidden endpoint, security workaround, new chat or subagent |
None. |
| Coordinator-file write |
None performed or claimed. |
| Exact source-opening clocks |
Unknown. |
| Independent/all-source/current-law certification |
Not claimed. |
| Provider, locality, component, parent or country acceptance |
Not granted; holds remain. |
Exact remaining facts before an individual conclusion
The complete challenged decision; the alleged defect and where it was previously raised; the lawful notification record; representation and period privileges; the actual court calendar and electronic channel; every prior clarification application and ruling; the opponent’s participation; any other appeal and payment order; any suspension order; the sanction sequence and updated case value; and the exact higher-appeal issues and admission requirements.
Final disposition: PASS-21 establishes the bounded federal gateway for ordinary embargos de declaração: qualifying defects, actor and forum, five-business-day filing, no preparo, participation before modifying relief, conditional interruption, limited suspension, sanctions and conditional prequestioning. It does not establish that any actual filing is timely or proper, any decision is defective, any fine is owed, any period has restarted, any enforcement is stayed, or any debt or judgment has been cancelled.
END C_BR PASS-21