Sources#

Source ids [S#]/[R#] are carried verbatim from _research/risikolebensversicherung.md (the citation ground truth for this product) and are frozen — never renumber. No id is absent from this file and the numbering has no gaps: all seventeen primary sources S1–S17 and all twenty-three product-level references R1–R23 are cited by product-spec.md, eighteen of the R-entries again by technical-notes.md, and sixteen again by model.md. When these entries were first written that completeness was not evidential strength but its opposite: no document among them had been opened, so nothing could be dropped for saying too little, and every entry was cited for what it would settle and for the fact that it did not. Twenty-two of the forty now settle it. Where a sibling library’s sources.md records omitted ids — frlib drops three for returning nothing citable — this one records absences of a different kind, in each entry’s Retrieved line and in the closing register. Access dates: 2026-08-29 at drafting, when this list was assembled without opening a document, and 2026-08-30 for the re-verification pass each entry below records. No sources were newly added at drafting. Cross-product [REG-R#] tags are listed in their own section at the end.

Retrieval conditions — read before any entry below. This file was drafted under one set of conditions and re-verified under another. Both belong in the record, and this product sat at the worse end of the first.

How it was drafted. Two independent limits applied. Direct HTTP egress was blocked by an organisation network policy: WebFetch and curl were refused with HTTP 403 at the egress gateway for every host outside a short package-registry allowlist, and gesetze-im-internet.de, bafin.de, gdv.de, aktuar.de, bundesfinanzministerium.de, dejure.org, buzer.de, destatis.de and de.wikipedia.org were all tried and all refused. And the session’s WebSearch budget — 200 calls, shared across the library — was exhausted before this product’s research began, during the regulatory and contract-law work and during delib products 1 and 2, so every search attempted for this product returned the budget-exhausted message and it had no research channel at all. Not one document listed here had been opened when these entries were first written — no AVB, no Produktinformationsblatt, no Verbraucherinformation, no statutory text, no rate card, no comparison-portal result. The draft rested instead on the authoring model’s own knowledge of German insurance law and practice, disciplined by std on every level it standardized and [unverified] on every specific it could not confirm. Nothing was invented under that regime: no edition, tariff code, document number, page count or publication date was guessed, and an entry read URL: not established wherever the canonical form was not one this author was confident of.
How it stands now. That policy has been lifted and the citations were re-verified against the primary documents on 2026-08-30. Twenty-two of the forty entries below read Retrieved: yes and eighteen read no — 55 %, against 501 of delib’s 805 source entries (62 %) library-wide, where all fifteen German instruments the library cites were read as canonical XML with each law’s amendment status (Stand) recorded and, of 950 statutory section references checked, 950 were correct. Retrieved: yes means one thing exactly: the document was opened and the passage the entry rests on was read. Here that is ten instruments — the VVG, the MindZV, the DeckRV, the VAG, the AGG, the EStG, the ErbStG, the VVG-InfoV and the HGB as canonical XML from gesetze-im-internet.de, each entry carrying the Stand it was read at, and the VersStG 2021 from one of the few per-section pages that serves text rather than a frameset — together with three wordings and two premium specimens as PDFs: the GDV Musterbedingungen, Stand 21.07.2025; CosmosDirekt LA 803 A (04.26) with its Besondere Bedingungen; Hannoversche T25, Stand 09/2025, in a 32-page pack; the two Cosmos Informationsblatt specimens; and one carrier surplus guide in HTML.
What the eighteen no entries are. They are the carrier sweep and the secondary literature, and most name their own failure on their own line. HTTP 404 at the cited URL and a JavaScript wall behind it: [S6], where the Debeka path this library carried is gone and the replacement Vertragsgrundlagen library injects its document links client-side, so no PDF address is in the served HTML — the same wall that leaves [S8] and [S11] with a product page and no conditions file, the wording being reached through a quote flow. A distribution-channel wall: [S7], whose wordings sit behind the broker channel, which is itself the fact that entry records. Not searched for in this pass: [S9], [S10], [S12] and [S13], once [S1], [S3] and [S4] had settled the clause questions they would have been read for; [S13] is cited for nothing beyond the existence of the carriers it names. Paywall and subscription: [S16], Finanztest, published with a free summary and the test itself paid; [S17] and R20, the rating houses’ Bedingungsanalysen. Nothing published to retrieve: [S14], where a comparison result is generated per query and is not a document at all. Located but not read: R12, whose four DAV addresses were opened on 2026-08-30 and confirmed live, public and of the size and kind the entry describes, but whose text was not read, so its substantive claims stay inherited. Nothing product-specific found: R18 and R19, no GDV term-segment series and no BaFin item reaching a pure protection contract; R22; and R23, where no decision is cited by date or file number anywhere in this product’s documents. The four secondary entries [S14] to [S17] still carry the drafting-time reason on their Retrieved lines, and none of them was given a URL.

What follows from that, stated plainly, and it now cuts two ways. Where an entry says Retrieved: yes, the § numbers, editions, page counts and quoted German sentences below were transcribed from the document itself, and the claim the entry carries can be treated as sound. Where it says no, a delib citation is still a pointer, not a certificate: it names the instrument a claim should be checked against and does not assert that anyone checked it, the entry is a known reference — a document that exists and is the right kind of document for the claim beside it — and it says so. Re-verification was not a formality. It overturned this product’s flat denial of any Rückkaufswert, corrected the claim that German term-life charge levels are structurally undisclosed, replaced a guessed Nachversicherung event list with a carrier’s own and re-titled § 163 VVG; the closing register records each correction and which document forced it.

One thing here was evidence before any document was opened, and it is second-hand. Several instruments this product turns on were search-corroborated for the two sibling products while budget remained, and their findings are recorded in _research/kapitallebensversicherung.md and _research/klassische_rentenversicherung.md. Where an entry below says “inherited corroboration”, someone checked something — for the sibling’s purpose, not for this one. That chain covers §§ 161, 169, 165, 19 and 153 VVG, the MindZV percentages, the DeckRV rate history and the DAV 2008 T Richtlinie, and at drafting it was the strongest thing in this file. It now sits behind the instruments themselves everywhere the XML settled the point, and it remains the only support the file has for R12, which was located but not read. Levels, though, are still not observed. Uncertain numbers became std parameters rather than citations: apart from one direct writer’s published model case [S2], not one Bruttobeitrag, Zahlbeitrag, spread ratio, smoker ratio, charge, commission scale or lapse rate in this product’s documents is an observation, and model.md’s standardization table lists every one.

Primary product sources#

S1 — GDV, “Allgemeine Bedingungen für die Risikolebensversicherung” (Musterbedingungen)#

Publisher / doc type: Gesamtverband der Deutschen Versicherungswirtschaft e. V.; Musterbedingungen — model AVB published by the industry association for members to adopt, adapt or ignore. Expressly unverbindlich and optional, which is a competition-law disclaimer and is load-bearing for citation weight
URL: https://www.gdv.de/resource/blob/6324/13d86b44ff6f4d6800e9ddeb7bc17476/allgemeine-bedingungen-fur-die-risikolebensversicherung-data.pdf, reached from the Musterbedingungen index at https://www.gdv.de/gdv/service/musterbedingungen. The document’s own title is Allgemeine Bedingungen für die Risikolebensversicherung — not “für die Risikoversicherung”, which is the carriers’ usual heading
Retrieved: yes (PDF, 18 pp., Stand: 21.07.2025, read 2026-08-30; the index page also retrieved, OK). The unverbindlich disclaimer is on its face: “Diese Bedingungen sind für die Versicherer unverbindlich; ihre Verwendung ist rein fakultativ. Abweichende Bedingungen können vereinbart werden.”
Used for: the industry model wording, now read. The question-headed second-person drafting style is confirmed on every section heading (“Wie erfolgt die Überschussbeteiligung?”, “Wann können Sie Ihren Vertrag beitragsfrei stellen oder kündigen?”), which product-spec.md’s overview describes. Four substantive things now come from S1 rather than from inference: the Selbsttötung three-year clock restarts for the increased or reinstated part on a contract change (§ 5 Abs. 3 — gap 9, closed); Kündigung converts the contract into a beitragsfreie Versicherung and pays a Rückkaufswert under § 169 VVG only where the paid-up sum fails a carrier-set minimum (§ 13 Abs. 8 — which contradicts the “nothing is paid, ever” reading this product was built on, see R2); the § 4 DeckRV Verrechnungsverfahren is applied with the 2,5 % ceiling and the remainder of the acquisition cost spread over the whole premium-paying period (§ 14 Abs. 2–3); and surplus is allocated per Bestandsgruppe and Gewinnverband by a verursachungsorientiertes Verfahren (§ 2 Abs. 2–3). Footnote 28 records that the Zillmer clause “ist nur bei der Verwendung des Zillmerverfahrens aufzunehmen” — Zillmerung is optional on this line, which bears directly on model.md’s std α (gap 8). An [S1] tag now means “the industry model wording says this”, and where a carrier wording is cited beside it the two are compared

S2 — GDV, Produktinformationsblatt pattern for the Risikoversicherung#

Publisher / doc type: GDV; model Produktinformationsblatt (PIB) — the short pre-contractual product summary. The name has moved on: since the IDD implementation the document § 4 VVG-InfoV requires is the Informationsblatt zu Versicherungsprodukten (IPID, Durchführungsverordnung (EU) 2017/1469), and carriers now issue that; “PIB” survives as the market’s older name and as some carriers’ file naming R17
URL: no GDV model PIB for this line is published on the Musterbedingungen index. A carrier specimen was retrieved instead and is cited in its place: Cosmos Lebensversicherungs-AG, Muster-Informationsblatt zu Versicherungsprodukten, https://www.cosmosdirekt.de/resource/blob/15750/ce3439de3bbf09d3d5fee7889a3cd235/vib-crc-risikolebensversicherung-data.pdf, and the older Produktinformationsblatt pattern https://www.cosmosdirekt.de/resource/blob/89394/91ebf9428a54446bc0e61e17723c3332/pib-risiko-lebensversicherung-data.pdf
Retrieved: yes for the carrier specimens (PDF, 2 pp., edition Muster-VIB CR_CRC (12.20); PDF, 5 pp., edition PIB_CRB/CRCB_Berechnung (01.2018); both read 2026-08-30). No GDV model PIB exists to retrieve — the association publishes model Bedingungen and Standmitteilungen for life, not a model PIB
Used for: the single largest change this pass makes. The inference that a carrier states the Bruttobeitrag and the Zahlbeitrag side by side in this document was right, and the specimen states them: for a model case of Eintrittsalter 41, Vertragsdauer 19 Jahre, Bankkaufmann, Versicherungssumme 100 000 €, tariff CRB2, a monthly Tarifbeitrag of 18,21 EUR against a first-year Zahlbeitrag of 8,20 EUR — and it goes further than expected, giving the acquisition cost in euro and as a percentage of the Tarifbeitragssumme. That closes gap 1 and gap 8 for one carrier, and the figures and what follows from them are set out in product-spec.md’s premium section and model.md’s two-premium section. The figures are observations of one direct writer’s model case and are not generalised: no [S2] figure is used as a model parameter, and the std scale is unchanged

S3 — CosmosDirekt (Cosmos Lebensversicherungs-AG), Risikolebensversicherung#

Publisher / doc type: Cosmos Lebensversicherungs-AG; Allgemeine Bedingungen für die Risiko-Lebensversicherung, Besondere Bedingungen, Informationsblatt zu Versicherungsprodukten, Produktinformationsblatt, product page
URL: AVB https://www.cosmosdirekt.de/resource/blob/7944/7b400325610aa816ee0ed2e1deda323d/allgemeine-bedingungen-risikoversicherung-la-803-a--data.pdf · Besondere Bedingungen https://www.cosmosdirekt.de/resource/blob/611396/6d70b9698c9fc73321e55cb81a98c9e1/besondere-bedingungen-fuer-die-risiko-lebensversicherung-la-804-a--data.pdf · the carrier’s whole Versicherungsbedingungen library at https://www.cosmosdirekt.de/services/vertragsservice/vertragsservice-versicherungsbedingungen/. The LA <number> <letter> convention was right: the term-assurance codes are LA 803 A and LA 804 A
Retrieved: yes (AVB: PDF, 11 pp., edition LA 803 A (04.26); Besondere Bedingungen: PDF, 6 pp., edition LA 804 A (04.26); both read 2026-08-30). The two Informationsblatt/PIB specimens are at [S2]
Used for: the primary carrier wording of this product, and the entry that changed most. It establishes: the Beitragsverrechnung mechanic in the carrier’s own words — “Die Überschussanteile (Sofortrabatt) werden in Prozent des Bruttobeitrags festgesetzt und mit den laufenden Beiträgen verrechnet” (§ 3 Abs. 2 b) — which is the exact shape technical-notes.md derives v_d in; that on a constant sum insured “bleibt Ihre Absicherung sowie der vereinbarte Bruttobeitrag über die gesamte Versicherungsdauer unverändert”; the Selbsttötung three-year clock and its restart for the changed or reinstated part (§ 2 Abs. 4 — gap 9, closed); the Nachversicherungsgarantie event list, the twelve-month window, the 20 % / 50 000 € per-event cap, the five-occasion cumulative cap and the age-50 limit (§ 13 — gap 7, closed); the twelve-month smoker qualifying period and the fact that a switch to smoking is a Gefahrerhöhung (§ 18 — gap 22, partly closed); and the § 4 DeckRV Verrechnungsverfahren with its 2,5 % ceiling (§ 16 Abs. 2). Two things it establishes against the library: on this carrier full Kündigung really does pay nothing — “Bei einer vollständig gekündigten Versicherung fällt kein Rückkaufswert an und Ihre Versicherung erlischt” (§ 15 Abs. 10) — but Beitragsfreistellung on a constant sum insured is a live right that produces a real paid-up sum, and only the falling-sum variant has no Deckungskapital at all (§ 15 Abs. 1–4); and the tariff runs at a Rechnungszins of 0,25 Prozent, not at the DeckRV maximum the model assumes R10. The direct-channel spread argument is still structural, not sourced — but the [S2] figures now measure it for this carrier

S4 — Hannoversche Lebensversicherung AG (VHV group), Risikolebensversicherung#

Publisher / doc type: Hannoversche Lebensversicherung AG; Bedingungen und Informationen — Risikoversicherung, a single pack containing the Allgemeine Bedingungen für die Risikoversicherung / T25, the BUZ and UZ riders, the Steuer-Informationen, a Lexikon and the Merkblatt zur Anzeigepflichtverletzung
URL: https://www.hannoversche.de/dam/risiko/bedingungen/bedingungen-risikolebensversicherung-aktuell.pdf
Retrieved: yes (PDF, 32 pp., document 700.0005.35, Stand 09/2025, AVB T25, read 2026-08-30)
Used for: the second carrier wording, and the one that disproves the library’s strongest claim. It corroborates [S3] independently on the two mechanics that matter: the declared surplus is fixed “in Prozent des Tarifbeitrags” and credited as a Sofortgutschrift against each instalment (§ 20 Abs. 3 b aa–bb), and it “kann auch Null Euro betragen” — which is the asymmetry product-spec.md describes, stated by the carrier. The Selbsttötung clock and its restart on an increase are word-for-word the [S1] model wording (§ 19). But its § 13 says that Kündigung converts the contract into a beitragsfreie Versicherung (minimum sum 2 500 €), and where that minimum is not reached “wird das Deckungskapital abzüglich des oben beschriebenen Abzugs ausgezahlt und der Vertrag erlischt”, the Abzug being 60 % des Deckungskapitals — with a Rückkaufswerte table annexed to the Versicherungsschein for every tariff except T3 and T4, the falling-sum tariffs that build no Deckungskapital. So a German term assurance can carry a surrender value; see R2 and the register below. It also cites § 88 VAG and §§ 341e, 341f HGB as the Deckungsrückstellung basis, which is R21’s pointer confirmed from the contract side

S5 — HUK-COBURG / HUK24, Risikolebensversicherung and the Überschussbeteiligung guide#

Publisher / doc type: HUK-COBURG / HUK24; insurer guide page about term assurance specifically, plus the product pages
URL: https://www.huk24.de/risikolebensversicherung/ratgeber-lebensversicherung/ueberschussbeteiligung
Retrieved: yes (HTML, ~66 kB, page titled Überschussbeteiligung der Risikolebensversicherung, read 2026-08-30)
Used for: the characterisation the entry was cited for, now read rather than inferred — a carrier’s own page devoted to surplus participation on term assurance, so the carrier does treat it as central. Two things it gives that the library did not have. The two surplus forms: “In der Praxis bieten Versicherer bei Risikolebensversicherungen für die Überschussbeteiligung wiederum meist eines von zwei Modellen an: den Todesfallbonus und den Sofortrabatt” — and [S1], [S3] and [S4] all carry exactly that pair, Sofortrabatt while premiums are paid and Todesfallbonus once paid up. And the asymmetry, stated plainly: the Tarifbeitrag agreed at inception “ist der maximal zu leistende Versicherungsbeitrag”, and if the insurer earns less surplus “steigt der Beitrag für den Versicherten höchstens bis zu dieser Höhe an” — which is product-spec.md’s asymmetry section in the carrier’s own words; technical-notes.md cites it in the contractual-elements table beside the Zahlbeitrag row. Correction: the entry previously claimed this page for a four-component surplus vocabulary — Zins-, Risiko-, Kosten- and übrige Überschüsse. It uses no such vocabulary; it names three factors — the capital-market result, the insurer’s cost structure, and the number of deaths — which is the MindZV three of R9 and the three [S3]’s § 3 lists. The four-component form belongs to the endowment product, not here, and has been corrected in product-spec.md. No rate, no Beitragsverrechnung percentage and no spread ratio is on this page — those come from [S2] instead

S6 — Debeka Lebensversicherungsverein a. G., Bedingungswerk for the Risikoversicherung#

Publisher / doc type: Debeka Lebensversicherungsverein a. G.; Bedingungswerk (Debeka’s name for its AVB booklets) in the carrier’s public Vertragsgrundlagen library
URL: the path pattern the library carried, https://www.debeka.de/content/dam/de/webauftritt/vertragsgrundlagen/lebens-rentenversicherung/, now returns HTTP 404. The carrier’s current Vertragsgrundlagen library is at https://www.debeka.de/service/vertragsgrundlagen.html, which retrieves and lists a Risikolebensversicherung section — but the per-document links are injected client-side and are not in the served HTML, so no term-assurance PDF address could be reached
Retrieved: no — the cited path 404s and the replacement library page returns its index without document links (checked 2026-08-30). Entry kept as a known reference
Used for: the largest German life mutual by contract count in product-spec.md’s variations table, and for two inherited cautions the specification repeats rather than hides — both of which this pass confirmed from other carriers’ documents. A carrier does maintain several parallel wordings within one product family: [S3] ships an AVB and two sets of Besondere Bedingungen over three product variants, and [S4] runs eight term tariffs T1–T8 under one AVB. And Überschussbeteiligung clause numbering is indeed carrier- and tariff-dependent — the same clause is § 2 in the [S1] model wording, § 3 at [S3] and § 20 at [S4] — so the caution stands and its tag is removed: a section number in a German AVB must be cited with the wording it comes from, which every AVB citation in this file now is. No Debeka term-assurance figure is asserted

S7 — Dialog Lebensversicherungs-AG (Generali group), Risikolebensversicherung#

Publisher / doc type: Dialog Lebensversicherungs-AG; AVB, Verbraucherinformation, broker-facing tariff material
URL: not established. dialog-versicherung.de returned an HTTP error and dialog-leben.de serves a broker portal whose only public route is a Risikovoranfrage form; no public conditions library was reachable (checked 2026-08-30)
Retrieved: no — the carrier publishes its wordings behind the broker channel, which is itself the fact this entry records. Entry kept as a known reference
Used for: the German market’s specialist term-life carrier for the broker channel, in product-spec.md’s variations and distribution sections, and for one argument that reaches the mechanics: a monoline’s Risikoergebnis is its entire technical result, so the MindZV minimum allocation R9 binds its surplus policy directly rather than competing with an investment result. The positioning is asserted from market knowledge; no wording, tariff, rate, Berufsgruppen table or surplus declaration is asserted (gap 5)

S8 — Allianz Lebensversicherungs-AG, Risikolebensversicherung#

Publisher / doc type: Allianz Lebensversicherungs-AG; AVB, Produktinformationsblatt, product page
URL: not established. The carrier’s Risikolebensversicherung product page retrieves but carries no document links in the served HTML — the conditions are reached through a quote flow, not published as files (checked 2026-08-30)
Retrieved: no — no term-assurance document address could be reached. Entry kept as a known reference
Used for: the market leader by premium income and the tied-agent end of the distribution range in product-spec.md’s variations table, and as the natural reference for the narrow-spread end of the Brutto/Zahlbeitrag distribution — a structural argument, not an observation (gap 1). One inherited fact about the family of Allianz life wordings is recorded and then set aside: a declared laufende Verzinsung for 2026 of 2,70 % on the classic book [inherited: kapitallebensversicherung.md S11], a savings-side rate of no use here, where the Zinsüberschuss is negligible

S9 — R+V Lebensversicherung AG, Risikolebensversicherung#

Publisher / doc type: R+V Lebensversicherung AG; AVB, Produktinformationsblatt, product page
URL: not established; not searched for in this pass, the two direct writers [S3] [S4] and the model wording [S1] having settled the clause questions this entry would have been read for
Retrieved: no. Entry kept as a known reference
Used for: the cooperative-bank channel comparator in product-spec.md’s variations and distribution sections. Nothing about its wording, rating structure or surplus declaration is asserted

S10 — NÜRNBERGER Lebensversicherung AG, Risikolebensversicherung#

Publisher / doc type: NÜRNBERGER Lebensversicherung AG; AVB, Verbraucherinformation
URL: not established. The carrier’s tariff-code convention is visible in the sibling research, which recorded an annuity wording headed “…nach Tarif NIR3301” [inherited: klassische_rentenversicherung.md S9]; the term-assurance code is not established
Retrieved: no; not searched for in this pass, for the reason given at [S9]. Entry kept as a known reference
Used for: a broker-channel carrier with a long biometric-risk book, in product-spec.md’s variations table only. No parameter is asserted

S11 — LV 1871 (Lebensversicherung von 1871 a. G.), Risikolebensversicherung#

Publisher / doc type: Lebensversicherung von 1871 a. G.; AVB, Produktinformationsblatt
URL: not established. The carrier’s Risikolebensversicherung page retrieves but publishes no conditions PDF in its served HTML (checked 2026-08-30)
Retrieved: no. Entry kept as a known reference
Used for: the carrier whose range emphasises Nachversicherungsgarantien and occupational differentiation, cited in product-spec.md’s riders-and-options section and in model.md’s provenance table for nvg_schedule.csv. The emphasis is still asserted from market knowledge and nothing of LV 1871’s own is read. But gap 7 is no longer open: [S3] § 13 now supplies a complete event list, a twelve-month exercise window, a 20 % / 50 000 € per-event cap, a five-occasion cumulative cap and an age-50 limit from a carrier wording, and model.md records how nvg_schedule.csv’s std parameters compare. The option remains off in the base run

S12 — Continentale Lebensversicherung a. G. and Europa Lebensversicherung AG, Risikolebensversicherung#

Publisher / doc type: Continentale Lebensversicherung a. G. and Europa Lebensversicherung AG; AVB, Produktinformationsblätter, product pages. Deliberately a single entry, because the pair is one group running a broker-channel and a direct-channel carrier side by side in the same product
URL: not established for either; the natural-experiment comparison this entry proposes was not run in this pass either
Retrieved: no. Entry kept as a known reference
Used for: product-spec.md’s variations section, as the cleanest natural experiment available for isolating the channel effect on the Brutto/Zahlbeitrag spread with underwriting and reserving basis held constant — and for the record that it was not run (gap 5). Cited jointly with [S3] in technical-notes.md and model.md wherever the std acquisition cost at the Zillmer ceiling is flagged as the charge most likely to be overstated

S13 — Further carriers selling a Risikolebensversicherung in Germany#

Publisher / doc type: Alte Leipziger; Volkswohl Bund; Swiss Life Deutschland; Zurich Deutscher Herold; ERGO Vorsorge; AXA; Barmenia; Württembergische; Gothaer; Die Stuttgarter; Baloise (Deutschland); uniVersa; DEVK; SIGNAL IDUNA; Provinzial; Generali Deutschland; HDI — AVB and Produktinformationsblätter
URL: not established for any of them
Retrieved: no; none was searched for, and none may be cited for anything beyond its own existence. Entries kept as known references
Used for: one thing only — that each of these carriers offers an individual Risikolebensversicherung in Germany, so product-spec.md’s variations section can state honestly that a market of this breadth exists and that none of it was sampled. No [S13] tag appears on any parameter anywhere in the delib library, and none may be added. Two of these carriers appear in the sibling research with located documents in other product families — Zurich Deutscher Herold [inherited: klassische_rentenversicherung.md S4–S7] and Gothaer [inherited: kapitallebensversicherung.md S7] — which establishes that their document libraries are public and nothing whatever about their term-assurance wordings

S14 — Comparison portals: Check24, Verivox, Tarifcheck — secondary#

Publisher / doc type: Check24, Verivox, Tarifcheck; price-comparison result pages and accompanying Ratgeber articles. Secondary, not product documents
URL: not established for the term-assurance pages. The sibling research recorded Verivox Ratgeber pages on Kapitallebensversicherung, Überschussbeteiligung and Zillmerung [inherited: kapitallebensversicherung.md S15], establishing that the portal publishes explanatory pages of this kind and nothing about its term-assurance pages
Retrieved: no — egress blocked; no search corroboration
Used for: the finding that the portals are the only public source of German RLV price points, because no German carrier publishes a rate card and the PIB quotes only the applicant’s own premium — and for why none could be obtained even in principle: a comparison result is generated per query and is not a published document. product-spec.md cites it in the premium section and the market-context section for that; model.md cites it in the mechanics-demonstration warning. No price point of any kind is recorded from it (gap 1)

S15 — Finanztip, “Risikolebensversicherung” — secondary#

Publisher / doc type: Finanztip; consumer guide article with a periodically refreshed carrier recommendation. Secondary
URL: not established. The sibling research recorded Finanztip articles on Überschussbeteiligung Lebensversicherung and Steuer auf Lebensversicherung [inherited: kapitallebensversicherung.md S16], establishing coverage of the subject area and nothing about this article
Retrieved: no — egress blocked; no search corroboration
Used for: the German consumer publication that most consistently makes the Brutto/Zahlbeitrag distinction the headline of its term-life advice — compare the Bruttobeitrag, because the Zahlbeitrag is what you pay and the Bruttobeitrag what you can be made to pay. product-spec.md cites it in its overview and in the asymmetry section; technical-notes.md cites it beside the benefit rows for the plain statement that nothing is paid on survival or on Kündigung; model.md cites it for the three sum-insured shapes being structural. No figure, ranking or spread statistic is asserted (gap 1)

S16 — Stiftung Warentest / Finanztest, term-life comparison tests — secondary#

Publisher / doc type: Stiftung Warentest; periodic comparison test of RLV tariffs, paywalled with a free summary. Secondary
URL: not established
Retrieved: no — egress blocked; no search corroboration
Used for: the market’s most influential comparison test, cited in product-spec.md’s variations and market-role sections and in model.md’s warning — and cited above all for its design, which is why it matters: Finanztest rates on the Zahlbeitrag for defined model customers at a stated age, sum, term and smoking status and separately reports the Bruttobeitrag, so a published test is the one German document type that would supply exactly the paired figures this product lacks. No edition, date, model-customer definition or premium figure is asserted (gap 1)

S17 — Franke und Bornberg, MORGEN & MORGEN, ASSEKURATA — secondary#

Publisher / doc type: Franke und Bornberg; MORGEN & MORGEN; ASSEKURATA; tariff ratings (FB-Unternehmensrating, M&M Rating Risikoleben), market studies and Bedingungsanalysen. Secondary
URL: not established for any term-life rating. The sibling research located Assekurata’s “24. Marktstudie Überschussbeteiligungen und Garantien 2026” and Franke und Bornberg commentary on Basisinformationsblätter [inherited: kapitallebensversicherung.md R25, R27], establishing that these houses publish in this field and nothing about their term-life work
Retrieved: no — egress blocked; no search corroboration
Used for: two market-design facts no statute supplies, both [unverified] and both structural rather than numeric: that the Brutto/Zahlbeitrag spread is itself a rated criterion, because it measures the insurer’s unilateral headroom to raise the billed premium — which is why product-spec.md’s asymmetry section and model.md’s two-premium section can say the German market treats the spread as a quality signal — and that the Nachversicherungsgarantie event list, caps and age limit are rated criteria, which is why the market has converged on a recognisable list. Neither is used as a numeric parameter anywhere

Regulatory and actuarial references (product research numbering)#

The statutes below were read from the canonical XML that gesetze-im-internet.de publishes for each instrument, which carries the law’s Stand. That is what Retrieved: yes means in this section, and each entry records the Stand it was read at. The .../<law>/__NNN.html addresses are kept as the human-facing link and nothing more: they answer 200 with a frameset of a few kilobytes containing no statutory text, so a section cited only through one of them is not retrieved. Where a section is load-bearing the entry now quotes it exactly, in German, from that XML; every other statement about a section is still this author’s paraphrase, and paragraph numbers that were not read are still marked [unverified].

R1 — VVG § 161, Selbsttötung#

Publisher / doc type: Bundesministerium der Justiz (Versicherungsvertragsgesetz 2008); federal statute, Kapitel 5
URL: https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/vvg_2008/__161.html (human-facing link; that page is a 4 kB frameset with no statutory text). Read from https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/vvg_2008/xml.zip
Retrieved: yes (canonical XML, Stand: zuletzt geändert durch Art. 12 G v. 26.5.2026 I Nr. 156, read 2026-08-30)
Used for: the strongest single item in this product’s corpus, and now quoted rather than paraphrased. Abs. 1: “Bei einer Versicherung für den Todesfall ist der Versicherer nicht zur Leistung verpflichtet, wenn die versicherte Person sich vor Ablauf von drei Jahren nach Abschluss des Versicherungsvertrags vorsätzlich selbst getötet hat. Dies gilt nicht, wenn die Tat in einem die freie Willensbestimmung ausschließenden Zustand krankhafter Störung der Geistestätigkeit begangen worden ist.” Abs. 2 makes the period extendable by individual agreement — “Die Frist nach Absatz 1 Satz 1 kann durch Einzelvereinbarung erhöht werden” — and Abs. 3 requires payment of “den Rückkaufswert einschließlich der Überschussanteile nach § 169”. product-spec.md builds its Selbsttötung section and its Germany/France comparison on it; technical-notes.md makes it the § 161 benefit switch, suicide_years = 3, applied to death claims only and tranche by tranche; model.md states the switch and its per-increment restart. Gap 9 is closed, and not by the statute: § 161 Abs. 1 runs the clock from Abschluss des Versicherungsvertrags and is silent on increases, but the contract wordings are not, and three of them agree in near-identical terms — [S1] § 5 Abs. 3, [S3] § 2 Abs. 4 and [S4] § 19 Abs. 3 all restart the three years “bezüglich des geänderten oder wiederhergestellten Teils”. The model’s per-increment restart is market practice; it is now sourced to [S1] [S3] [S4] rather than to R1, and the [unverified] tag is removed

R2 — VVG § 169, Rückkaufswert#

Publisher / doc type: Gesetze im Internet; federal statute
URL: https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/vvg_2008/__169.html (human-facing link). Read from https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/vvg_2008/xml.zip
Retrieved: yes (canonical XML, Stand: zuletzt geändert durch Art. 12 G v. 26.5.2026 I Nr. 156, read 2026-08-30)
Used for: the entry this pass changed most, and it moved in both directions. The scope limitation is confirmed word for word, so gap 2’s tag — the one the file called the most consequential in this product — is removed. Abs. 1: “Wird eine Versicherung, die Versicherungsschutz für ein Risiko bietet, bei dem der Eintritt der Verpflichtung des Versicherers gewiss ist, durch Kündigung des Versicherungsnehmers oder durch Rücktritt oder Anfechtung des Versicherers aufgehoben, hat der Versicherer den Rückkaufswert zu zahlen.” A term assurance’s insured event is not gewiss, so the Abs. 1 duty does not attach on Kündigung. Abs. 3’s Mindestrückkaufswert — the Deckungskapital, but at least what results “bei gleichmäßiger Verteilung der angesetzten Abschluss- und Vertriebskosten auf die ersten fünf Vertragsjahre” — and Abs. 5’s Abzug test, including “Die Vereinbarung eines Abzugs für noch nicht getilgte Abschluss- und Vertriebskosten ist unwirksam”, are confirmed as well. But the conclusion the library drew from Abs. 1 went further than the section allows, and the retrieved wordings contradict it. § 169 defines the Rückkaufswert; it does not abolish it for this product, and §§ 152 Abs. 2, 161 Abs. 3 and 165 Abs. 1 Satz 2 each route a term contract to it. The market then pays it: [S1] § 13 Abs. 8 and [S4] § 13 both make Kündigung convert the contract into a beitragsfreie Versicherung, and where the paid-up sum fails a carrier-set minimum they pay “den Rückkaufswert entsprechend § 169 des Versicherungsvertragsgesetzes (VVG)” — at [S4] the Deckungskapital less an Abzug of 60 %, with a Rückkaufswerte table annexed to the Versicherungsschein for every tariff but the two falling-sum ones. Only [S3] § 15 Abs. 10 says flatly “Bei einer vollständig gekündigten Versicherung fällt kein Rückkaufswert an und Ihre Versicherung erlischt”. So “no cash value anywhere” is a claim about magnitude, not about contract design, and “corroborated by uniform market practice” was wrong — the practice is not uniform. What is uniform is the magnitude, and both model and carrier wordings say it in the same words: the Kostenverrechnung leaves “keine oder nur geringe Mittel” ([S1] § 14 Abs. 4, [S3] § 16 Abs. 4). product-spec.md and technical-notes.md are corrected accordingly; model.md’s claims_lapse = 0 is unchanged and is now carried as a best-estimate approximation of a nil-or-nominal amount rather than as a structural identity

R3 — VVG § 165, Prämienfreie Versicherung (Beitragsfreistellung)#

Publisher / doc type: Gesetze im Internet; federal statute
URL: https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/vvg_2008/__165.html (human-facing link). Read from https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/vvg_2008/xml.zip
Retrieved: yes (canonical XML, Stand: zuletzt geändert durch Art. 12 G v. 26.5.2026 I Nr. 156, read 2026-08-30)
Used for: the right the library called empty in substance — which is half right, and the half that is wrong matters. Abs. 1 confirmed: “Der Versicherungsnehmer kann jederzeit für den Schluss der laufenden Versicherungsperiode die Umwandlung der Versicherung in eine prämienfreie Versicherung verlangen, sofern die dafür vereinbarte Mindestversicherungsleistung erreicht wird. Wird diese nicht erreicht, hat der Versicherer den auf die Versicherung entfallenden Rückkaufswert einschließlich der Überschussanteile nach § 169 zu zahlen.” Abs. 2 computes the paid-up benefit “nach anerkannten Regeln der Versicherungsmathematik mit den Rechnungsgrundlagen der Prämienkalkulation unter Zugrundelegung des Rückkaufswertes nach § 169 Abs. 3 bis 5” — which is where the Stornoabzug enters, by reference to § 169 Abs. 5 and not from § 165 itself. The open question of gap 2 is answered: § 165 carries no gewiss limitation of its own. The right therefore exists in full on a term contract, and the retrieved wordings show it being exercised: [S3] § 15 Abs. 1 sets the paid-up sum from the Deckungskapital with the § 169 Abs. 3 five-year floor and ends the contract only below a 300 € minimum; [S4] § 13 Abs. 3 uses a 2 500 € minimum. So the claim that the paid-up right is empty is wrong as stated. It is empty on a falling sum insured, where [S3] says “kalkulationsbedingt kein Deckungskapital” is built and “eine Beitragsfreistellung nicht möglich” is the result; on a constant sum insured it produces a real, small paid-up cover. product-spec.md’s termination section has been corrected. technical-notes.md’s claims(t, "LAPSE") = 0 is unaffected, because a Beitragsfreistellung pays nothing at the time — it converts

R4 — VVG §§ 19–22, Vorvertragliche Anzeigepflicht and Anfechtung#

Publisher / doc type: Gesetze im Internet; federal statute
URL: https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/vvg_2008/__19.html, __20.html, __21.html, __22.html (human-facing links). Read from https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/vvg_2008/xml.zip
Retrieved: yes for §§ 19, 21 and 22 (canonical XML, Stand: zuletzt geändert durch Art. 12 G v. 26.5.2026 I Nr. 156, read 2026-08-30). § 20 (Vertreter des Versicherungsnehmers) was not read and is not relied on
Used for: the whole of product-spec.md’s underwriting-and-rating section, now verified. § 19 Abs. 1 is question-bounded in terms: the policyholder must disclose the Gefahrumstände known to him that are material “und nach denen der Versicherer in Textform gefragt hat” — there is no free-standing duty to volunteer. § 19 Abs. 5’s warning requirement (“nur … wenn er den Versicherungsnehmer durch gesonderte Mitteilung in Textform auf die Folgen einer Anzeigepflichtverletzung hingewiesen hat”), § 21 Abs. 2’s causation defence and § 22’s preservation of Anfechtung wegen arglistiger Täuschung are confirmed, and their [unverified] tags are removed. § 21 Abs. 3 confirmed exactly, including that the periods sit there and not in § 19: “Die Rechte des Versicherers nach § 19 Abs. 2 bis 4 erlöschen nach Ablauf von fünf Jahren nach Vertragsschluss … Hat der Versicherungsnehmer die Anzeigepflicht vorsätzlich oder arglistig verletzt, beläuft sich die Frist auf zehn Jahre.” One correction. The entry said § 19 “gives the insurer the right to accept with restrictions or only at an increased premium”. It does not: pre-contractual underwriting terms come from freedom of contract. What § 19 Abs. 4 Satz 2 gives is the retrospective route after a breach — the other terms “werden auf Verlangen des Versicherers rückwirkend … Vertragsbestandteil” — and that is where a retrospective Risikozuschlag or Leistungsausschluss comes from. One addition: Abs. 6 lets the policyholder terminate without notice within a month where such a change raises the premium by more than 10 % or excludes the undisclosed risk — and [S3] § 18 Abs. 6 carries the same 10 % right for a smoking Gefahrerhöhung. Still not cited by technical-notes.md or model.md: underwriting is a specification fact, and the model carries only its numeric residue, rating_factor

R5 — VVG § 153, Überschussbeteiligung#

Publisher / doc type: Gesetze im Internet; federal statute
URL: https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/vvg_2008/__153.html (human-facing link). Read from https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/vvg_2008/xml.zip
Retrieved: yes (canonical XML, Stand: zuletzt geändert durch Art. 12 G v. 26.5.2026 I Nr. 156, read 2026-08-30)
Used for: the statutory footing of the central mechanic, now read. Abs. 1: “Dem Versicherungsnehmer steht eine Beteiligung an dem Überschuss und an den Bewertungsreserven (Überschussbeteiligung) zu, es sei denn, die Überschussbeteiligung ist durch ausdrückliche Vereinbarung ausgeschlossen; die Überschussbeteiligung kann nur insgesamt ausgeschlossen werden.” Abs. 2 requires a verursachungsorientiertes Verfahren. That last clause of Abs. 1 is new to the library and is the reason surplus_form = keine at model point 12 is an all-or-nothing switch and not a partial exclusion. Both carrier wordings open their surplus clause by citing the section — [S3] § 3 and [S4] § 20 Abs. 1 both begin “Sie erhalten gemäß § 153 des Versicherungsvertragsgesetzes (VVG) eine Überschussbeteiligung” — and both then allocate by Bestandsgruppe, [S1] § 2 Abs. 3 adding the Gewinnverband as the unit inside it. On a product with no account to credit the cause-oriented allocation returns the RLV book’s own margin as a reduction of the premium, which is Beitragsverrechnung; product-spec.md, technical-notes.md’s derivation of v_d and model.md’s two-premium section all rest on that. The Bewertungsreserven tag is removed and the claim strengthened: Abs. 3 grants the half-share, but [S3] § 3 Abs. 1 c states the premiums leave no capital to hold, so “daher entstehen dem Grunde nach keine Bewertungsreserven, welche den Verträgen zugeordnet werden könnten” — not merely negligible, but none

R6 — VVG § 163, Prämien- und Leistungsänderung (the Treuhänder clause)#

Publisher / doc type: Gesetze im Internet; federal statute
URL: https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/vvg_2008/__163.html (human-facing link). Read from https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/vvg_2008/xml.zip
Retrieved: yes (canonical XML, Stand: zuletzt geändert durch Art. 12 G v. 26.5.2026 I Nr. 156, read 2026-08-30)
Used for: the single most important legal fact about the German term-life premium, and it is a fact about what § 163 does not reach — which survives, with the entry’s own heading corrected. The section is titled Prämien- und Leistungsänderung, not “Anpassung der Prämie”. Abs. 1 permits a Neufestsetzung of the premium on three cumulative conditions: that “sich der Leistungsbedarf nicht nur vorübergehend und nicht voraussehbar gegenüber den Rechnungsgrundlagen der vereinbarten Prämie geändert hat”; that the new premium is “angemessen und erforderlich” to guarantee dauernde Erfüllbarkeit; and that “ein unabhängiger Treuhänder” has checked and confirmed both — with re-setting excluded where the original calculation was inadequate and a careful actuary should have seen it. Abs. 2 lets the policyholder demand a benefit reduction instead; Abs. 4 drops the Treuhänder where supervisory approval is required. On a German RLV that route is essentially never used, the Bruttobeitrag being guaranteed for the term — [S3] states the guarantee (“bleibt Ihre Absicherung sowie der vereinbarte Bruttobeitrag über die gesamte Versicherungsdauer unverändert”) and [S5] states its consequence, that the Tarifbeitrag “ist der maximal zu leistende Versicherungsbeitrag”. What moves the customer’s bill is the Überschussdeklaration: cutting the Beitragsverrechnung raises the Zahlbeitrag toward the Bruttobeitrag with no § 163 procedure, no Treuhänder and no policyholder remedy, because no guaranteed term has changed — and [S4] § 20 Abs. 4 says the declaration “kann auch Null Euro betragen”, which is the whole of the asymmetry in one carrier sentence. product-spec.md’s asymmetry section, technical-notes.md’s decl_scale stress and model.md’s two-premium argument all cite it. The [unverified] tag on “§ 163 is not used in practice on RLV Bruttobeiträge” is kept: it is a statement about practice that no retrieved document reports either way

R7 — VVG §§ 150, 159, 162 — Versicherte Person, Bezugsberechtigung, Tötung durch Leistungsberechtigten#

Publisher / doc type: Gesetze im Internet; federal statute
URL: .../vvg_2008/__150.html, __159.html, __162.html (human-facing links). Read from https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/vvg_2008/xml.zip
Retrieved: yes (canonical XML, Stand: zuletzt geändert durch Art. 12 G v. 26.5.2026 I Nr. 156, read 2026-08-30)
Used for: product-spec.md’s three-roles paragraph, its verbundene Leben section and its Über-Kreuz section — all three sections verified, and the tags removed. § 150 Abs. 1 permits insurance on the life of another; Abs. 2 requires that person’s consent in terms: “Wird die Versicherung für den Fall des Todes eines anderen genommen und übersteigt die vereinbarte Leistung den Betrag der gewöhnlichen Beerdigungskosten, ist zur Wirksamkeit des Vertrags die schriftliche Einwilligung des anderen erforderlich” — with an exception for betriebliche Altersversorgung, a special rule in Abs. 3 for a parent insuring a minor child, and Abs. 4 leaving the Beerdigungskosten ceiling to the supervisor. This is the provision every verbundene Leben and Über-Kreuz arrangement runs on. § 159 Abs. 2 and Abs. 3 fix when the beneficiary’s right arises — on the insured event for a revocable designation, on designation itself for an unwiderruflich one — which is why the benefit reaches the beneficiary outside the estate. The entry’s heading was wrong and is corrected: § 162 is titled Tötung durch Leistungsberechtigten, not Herbeiführung des Versicherungsfalles (which is § 81, in the general part). Its substance is as stated: the insurer is leistungsfrei where the policyholder intentionally and unlawfully brings about the death of the insured person, and a beneficiary who does so is treated as never designated. Not modelled: the forfeitures are not best-estimate events

R8 — VVG § 152 (Widerruf des Versicherungsnehmers), § 166 (Kündigung des Versicherers), § 168 (Kündigung des Versicherungsnehmers)#

Publisher / doc type: Gesetze im Internet; federal statute
URL: .../vvg_2008/__152.html, __166.html, __168.html, and __12.html and __38.html for the two rules the entry had misattributed (human-facing links). Read from https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/vvg_2008/xml.zip
Retrieved: yes for §§ 12, 38, 152, 166, 168 and 171 (canonical XML, Stand: zuletzt geändert durch Art. 12 G v. 26.5.2026 I Nr. 156, read 2026-08-30)
Used for: the exit machinery, in product-spec.md’s termination section and in technical-notes.md’s lapse and no-cash-value conventions — with two errors found and fixed. § 152 Abs. 1 confirmed exactly: “Abweichend von § 8 Absatz 1 Satz 1 beträgt die Widerrufsfrist 30 Tage”, which delib absorbs into the year-one lapse rate std rather than modelling separately. Error one: § 166 is titled Kündigung des Versicherers, not Beitragsverzug, and it does not impose a Textform demand — Abs. 1 says only that where the insurer terminates, “wandelt sich mit der Kündigung die Versicherung in eine prämienfreie Versicherung um”, with § 165 applying. Error two: the Textform demand belongs to § 38 Abs. 1, and its minimum period is two weeks, not a month — “eine Zahlungsfrist bestimmen, die mindestens zwei Wochen betragen muss”. (The month is § 38 Abs. 3 Satz 3’s cure period after termination.) § 168 Abs. 1 confirmed: “Sind laufende Prämien zu zahlen, kann der Versicherungsnehmer das Versicherungsverhältnis jederzeit für den Schluss der laufenden Versicherungsperiode kündigen” — and § 12 supplies the period: “Als Versicherungsperiode gilt, falls nicht die Prämie nach kürzeren Zeitabschnitten bemessen ist, der Zeitraum eines Jahres.” So a monthly-paying contract is terminable monthly, as the entry said, and the carriers go further still: [S3] § 15 Abs. 9 and [S4] § 13 Abs. 1 both allow termination “jederzeit zum Ende des laufenden Monats” whatever the Zahlweise, [S3] refunding the unexpired part of a prepaid premium. That makes technical-notes.md’s annual-grid anniversary-only exits more of an approximation than the entry claimed, not less. Worth recording alongside: § 168 Abs. 2 confines the single-premium termination right to a gewiss risk, the same test as § 169 Abs. 1, so a single-premium term assurance has no § 168 right at all — not a case this product models. § 171 confirms the halbzwingend range: “Von § 152 Absatz 1 bis 4 und den §§ 153 bis 155, 157, 158, 161 und 163 bis 170 kann nicht zum Nachteil des Versicherungsnehmers … abgewichen werden”

R9 — MindZV, Verordnung über die Mindestbeitragsrückerstattung in der Lebensversicherung#

Publisher / doc type: Bundesministerium der Finanzen; federal regulation
URL: https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/mindzv_2016/BJNR083100016.html (retrieves in full, OK, ~53 kB) · https://www.buzer.de/gesetz/12013/a198221.htm (OK). Read from https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/mindzv_2016/xml.zip
Retrieved: yes (canonical XML, Stand: zuletzt geändert durch Art. 1 V v. 7.7.2020 I 1688, read 2026-08-30)
Used for: the engine of the German term product — and gap 4 is closed: the section attribution the file refused to guess is settled, and the three percentages sit in three consecutive sections. § 7 (Risikoergebnis): “Die Mindestzuführung zur Rückstellung für Beitragsrückerstattung in Abhängigkeit vom Risikoergebnis für die überschussberechtigten Versicherungsverträge beträgt 90 Prozent des auf überschussberechtigte Versicherungsverträge entfallenden Risikoergebnisses”. § 8 (Übriges Ergebnis): 50 Prozent. § 6 Abs. 1 (Kapitalanlageergebnis): 90 Prozent of the anzurechnende Kapitalerträge “abzüglich der rechnungsmäßigen Zinsen” — the entry’s paraphrase, “after the Deckungsrückstellung discounting charge”, is right but the regulation’s own words are tighter. § 4 Abs. 1 and § 7 Satz 2 confirm the separate Alt-/Neubestand computation. One refinement the library did not have: each of the three is floored at zero — “Ergeben sich rechnerisch negative Beträge …, werden sie durch Null ersetzt” — so the 90 % is a one-way minimum, not a sharing rule. An RLV’s technical outcome is almost entirely Risikoergebnis, so 90 % of the tariff’s mortality margin must go back, and Beitragsverrechnung is the only route on a product with no account to credit. Both carrier wordings cite the regulation and both state the percentages: [S3] § 3 Abs. 1 a gives 90 % / 50 % / 90 % in the same order, and [S4] § 20 the same. technical-notes.md derives v_d from it with surplus_share = 0.90; model.md names it as the reason the spread is wide and the reason the Zahlbeitrag is derived rather than assumed. MindZV section numbers may now be cited

R10 — DeckRV, Deckungsrückstellungsverordnung — Höchstrechnungszins and Höchstzillmersatz#

Publisher / doc type: Bundesministerium der Finanzen; federal regulation
URL: https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/deckrv_2016/ · https://www.buzer.de/gesetz/12006/index.htm (OK, used for the amendment history). Read from https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/deckrv_2016/xml.zip
Retrieved: yes (canonical XML, Stand: zuletzt geändert durch Art. 1 V v. 19.7.2024 I Nr. 250 — the Sechste Verordnung itself, so the current rate is read at the instrument that set it, read 2026-08-30)
Used for: the two bounds the tariff is struck inside, both now read, and gap 11’s first half closed. § 2 Abs. 1 — the regulation’s own term is Höchstzinssatz, not Höchstrechnungszins — “wird der Höchstzinssatz für die Berechnung der Deckungsrückstellungen auf 1 Prozent festgesetzt”, and Abs. 2 fixes it for the whole term of the contract. § 4 Abs. 1, titled Höchstzillmersätze und versicherungsmathematische Berechnungsmethode: “Der Zillmersatz darf 25 Promille der Summe aller Prämien nicht überschreiten” — the base is the sum of all premiums, which is the Beitragssumme. Whether the cap reaches a term product is no longer open: § 4 draws no product distinction, and both [S1] § 14 Abs. 2 and [S3] § 16 Abs. 2 apply “das Verrechnungsverfahren nach § 4 der Deckungsrückstellungsverordnung” to a Risikolebensversicherung and quote the ceiling as 2,5 Prozent of the premiums payable over the term. But two things the entry assumed are wrong. First, § 4 Abs. 1 caps the zillmerbare part twice over — at 25 ‰ and at the “höchstmöglichen Prämienteile”, the parts of the premium needed neither for benefits nor for running costs, which on a term product is the binding constraint. Second, and more consequential for model.md, the 25 ‰ is not the acquisition cost: [S1] § 14 Abs. 3 and [S3] § 16 Abs. 3 both say “Die restlichen Abschluss- und Vertriebskosten werden über die gesamte Beitragszahlungsdauer verteilt”, so total acquisition cost exceeds the ceiling and the ceiling bounds only the part recovered by Zillmerung. [S2] measures it for one carrier at 2,41 % of the Tarifbeitragssumme, just inside the cap. technical-notes.md sets rechnungszins = 0.01 and zillmer_rate = 0.025 from this entry — but see the register: [S3] prices at a Rechnungszins of 0,25 %, not at the maximum, and [S1] footnote 28 records that the Zillmer clause is included “nur bei der Verwendung des Zillmerverfahrens”, so Zillmerung on this line is optional. The Nullstellung question (gap 11’s second half) is still unresolved — neither § 4 nor § 341f HGB addresses it — and stays [unverified]

R11 — VAG §§ 138–140 — Gleichbehandlung, Überschussbeteiligung, RfB#

Publisher / doc type: Bundesministerium der Justiz (Versicherungsaufsichtsgesetz 2016); federal statute
URL: https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/vag_2016/__138.html, __139.html, __140.html (human-facing links) · https://dejure.org/gesetze/VAG/139.html (OK). Read from https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/vag_2016/xml.zip
Retrieved: yes for §§ 138 and 140 (canonical XML, Stand: zuletzt geändert durch Art. 25 G v. 25.3.2026 I Nr. 81, read 2026-08-30). § 139 was not re-read from the XML in this pass and stays as the sibling’s inherited item
Used for: product-spec.md’s regulatory context and — the part that reaches the model — the Gleichbehandlungsgrundsatz, whose tag is now removed. § 138 is titled Prämienkalkulation in der Lebensversicherung; Gleichbehandlung, and Abs. 2 is one sentence: “Bei gleichen Voraussetzungen dürfen Prämien und Leistungen nur nach gleichen Grundsätzen bemessen werden.” Note what it says and does not: equal principles of measurement for premiums and benefits in equal circumstances — not equal amounts, and not in terms a rule about surplus allocation, though Leistungen reaches it. That is why an insurer declares one rate per collective rather than negotiating individual discounts, and therefore why technical-notes.md can model the Zahlbeitrag as a deterministic function of the Bruttobeitrag and a declared rate. The collective’s name is now known: not “tariff generation and rating cell” but the Bestandsgruppe and, inside it, the Gewinnverband — [S1] § 2 Abs. 2–3, with [S3] naming Bestandsgruppe 112 for its term book and [S4] Bestandsgruppe G for its collective business. § 138 Abs. 1 adds the prudence requirement the two-order structure implements: premiums must be calculated on “angemessene versicherungsmathematische Annahmen” and be high enough that the insurer can meet all its obligations. § 140 Abs. 1 confirms that RfB funds “dürfen nur für die Überschussbeteiligung der Versicherten … verwendet werden”, with the three supervisory exceptions both carrier wordings reproduce. § 139’s Bewertungsreserven mechanics are recorded and are economically empty here — [S3] § 3 Abs. 1 c says no Bewertungsreserven arise on this product at all R5

R12 — DAV, “Herleitung der Sterbetafel DAV 2008 T für Lebensversicherungen mit Todesfallcharakter”#

Publisher / doc type: Deutsche Aktuarvereinigung e. V.; DAV-Richtlinie / Fachgrundsatz, with a 2008 derivation paper and a 2022 restatement
URL: https://aktuar.de/de/wissen/fachinformationen/detail/herleitung-der-sterbetafel-dav-2008-t-fuer-lebensversicherungen-mit-todesfallcharakter/ · https://aktuar.de/content/PDF/Fachwissen/20080708_DAV_2008_T.pdf · https://aktuar.de/content/PDF/Fachwissen/2022-11-29_DAV-Richtlinie_Herleitung_DAV2008T.pdf · https://aktuar.de/content/PDF/Fachwissen/2022-11-29_DAV-Richtlinie_Herleitung_DAV2008T_R_NR.pdf — all returned by a search during the sibling research [inherited: kapitallebensversicherung.md R14]
Retrieved: no, on this file’s own bar. All four addresses are live and were opened on 2026-08-30 — the Fachinformation landing page (HTML, ~53 kB) and three PDFs: the 2008 derivation paper 20080708_DAV_2008_T.pdf (1,09 MB), and the 2022 Richtlinie documents 2022-11-29_DAV-Richtlinie_Herleitung_DAV2008T.pdf (1,14 MB) and ..._R_NR.pdf (1,67 MB) — but their text was not read, so the entry’s substantive claims about the derivation, the Sicherheitszuschlag procedure and the suitability statements remain the sibling’s inherited corroboration. What is newly established is that the documents are public, reachable at the cited addresses, and of the size and kind the entry describes. A later pass reading them would close gaps 6 and 12
Used for: the mortality basis of this product. Derived by the DAV Arbeitsgruppe Biometrische Rechnungsgrundlagen over 2006 to 2008 from German insurers’ own policy data with German population statistics; the Richtlinie regulates the derivation methodology and the procedure for setting the Sicherheitszuschläge, not their level; DAV 2008 T R and DAV 2008 T NR are in principle suitable for premium calculation differentiated by smoking status but not for policies written without a Gesundheitsprüfung; adopted 4 December 2008, restated as a Fachgrundsatz dated 29 November 2022. From it the documents take four things: the German first-order basis is DAV 2008 T; the Sicherheitszuschlag is part of the table’s construction, so first- and second-order are two levels of one framework and the model must publish both; the smoker split is actuarially sanctioned for pricing, which is why the market rates on it; and it is not available without underwriting, which is why simplified-issue German death covers are aggregate-rated. The table values are not public and delib does not redistribute them — mort_table.csv is a std proxy and model.md states the three anchors a replacement must preserve. The magnitude of the loading was not established (gap 6); the term-segment data coverage was truncated in the sibling’s search summary (gap 12). One carrier-side corroboration is new: [S3]’s AVB states its Rechnungsgrundlagen as “einer unternehmenseigenen Sterbetafel auf Basis der DAV 2008T” — so the table is the base and the carrier’s own table is built on it, which is exactly the first- and second-order framework model.md publishes both levels of. The Sicherheitszuschlag level is still not public (gap 6) and stays [unverified]; DeckRV § 5 Abs. 1 now supplies the legal reason it must exist: “Die Ableitung von Rechnungsgrundlagen auf der Basis eines besten Schätzwertes genügt nicht. Die Abschätzung künftiger Verhältnisse muss eine nachteilige Abweichung der relevanten Faktoren … beinhalten” R10

R13 — Unisex pricing: the EU Gender Directive, CJEU C-236/09 (Test-Achats), AGG § 20#

Publisher / doc type: Court of Justice of the European Union; Bundesministerium der Justiz; judgment and federal statute
URL: https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/agg/__19.html, __20.html, __33.html (human-facing links). Read from https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/agg/xml.zip. No URL is established for the Directive or for CJEU C-236/09, and none is guessed
Retrieved: yes for the German implementation, §§ 19, 20 and 33 AGG (canonical XML, Stand: zuletzt geändert durch Art. 15 G v. 22.12.2023 I Nr. 414, read 2026-08-30). No for the Directive and the judgment — neither was retrieved, and nothing is asserted from either beyond what the AGG text carries
Used for: the rule that sex may not enter the premium for contracts concluded from 21 December 2012 — and the date, which the entry could only corroborate obliquely through frlib, is now read in the German statute. AGG § 33 Abs. 5: “Bei Versicherungsverhältnissen, die vor dem 21. Dezember 2012 begründet werden, ist eine unterschiedliche Behandlung wegen des Geschlechts im Falle des § 19 Absatz 1 Nummer 2 bei den Prämien oder Leistungen nur zulässig, wenn dessen Berücksichtigung bei einer auf relevanten und genauen versicherungsmathematischen und statistischen Daten beruhenden Risikobewertung ein bestimmender Faktor ist.” The transitional carve-out runs to that date and no further. And § 20 Abs. 2 shows the shape of the prohibition from the other side: the risk-adequate-calculation justification it preserves is available for “Religion, einer Behinderung, des Alters oder der sexuellen Identität” — sex is absent from the list, so no actuarial justification is open for it at all. § 19 Abs. 1 Nr. 2 brings private insurance inside the prohibition. product-spec.md states the rule and its consequence; technical-notes.md resolves the tension with sex-distinct DAV 2008 T R12 the only way § 138 VAG allows — the tariff blends the two tables and the projection uses the policy’s own sex; model.md’s unisex section reports the resulting cross-subsidy between model points 1 and 2. The mixing ratio is still disclosed by nobody, so sex_mix_male = 0.50 remains std, and that female mortality at these ages is roughly half male remains [unverified] — no retrieved document states a ratio

R14 — EStG § 20 Abs. 1 Nr. 6 and § 10 Abs. 1 Nr. 3a — income tax and premium deductibility#

Publisher / doc type: Bundesministerium der Justiz (Einkommensteuergesetz); federal statute
URL: https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/estg/__20.html (OK, ~33 kB) · https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/estg/__10.html · https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/estg/__52.html (human-facing links). Read from https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/estg/xml.zip
Retrieved: yes (canonical XML, Stand: neugefasst durch Bek. v. 8.10.2009 I 3366, 3862, zuletzt geändert durch Art. 7 G v. 29.6.2026 I Nr. 197, read 2026-08-30)
Used for: the section that does not apply — now shown not to apply, twice over, and gap 16’s tag removed. § 20 Abs. 1 Nr. 6 Satz 1 taxes the Unterschiedsbetrag “im Erlebensfall oder bei Rückkauf des Vertrags bei Rentenversicherungen mit Kapitalwahlrecht … und bei Kapitalversicherungen mit Sparanteil, wenn der Vertrag nach dem 31. Dezember 2004 abgeschlossen worden ist”. A pure Risikolebensversicherung fails both limbs: it pays on death and not on survival or surrender, and it has no Sparanteil. So the Todesfallleistung is not investment income of the policyholder and the tax question moves entirely to the Erbschaftsteuer R15. Satz 2’s half-income rule is confirmed at the 60th year, with § 52 raising it to the 62nd “für Vertragsabschlüsse nach dem 31. Dezember 2011”. The 50 % Mindesttodesfallschutz of Satz 6 is confirmed verbatim — the benefit on the insured risk must not be “weniger als 50 Prozent der Summe der für die gesamte Vertragsdauer zu zahlenden Beiträge” — and § 52 applies it to contracts concluded after 31 March 2009, which is the entry’s 1 April 2009 date. Gap 17 is closed too, and the claim confirmed. § 10 Abs. 1 Nr. 3a names this product expressly among the sonstige Vorsorgeaufwendungen: contributions “zu Risikoversicherungen, die nur für den Todesfall eine Leistung vorsehen”. § 10 Abs. 4 sets the ceiling at 2 800 Euro a year for Nr. 3 and Nr. 3a together, or 1 900 Euro for anyone whose health cover is wholly or partly paid for by someone else — and Satz 4 is decisive: where the basic health and long-term-care contributions of Nr. 3 already exceed the ceiling, they are deducted in full and “ein Abzug von Vorsorgeaufwendungen im Sinne des Absatzes 1 Nummer 3a scheidet aus”. The entry’s claim that the effective deduction is nil for most policyholders is therefore statute, not inference, and the ceiling figures may now be stated. Nothing here is modelled

R15 — ErbStG §§ 3, 15, 16, 19 — the Erbschaftsteuer treatment of the death benefit#

Publisher / doc type: Bundesministerium der Justiz (Erbschaftsteuer- und Schenkungsteuergesetz); federal statute
URL: https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/erbstg_1974/ (OK, table of contents) · per-section .../erbstg_1974/__3.html, __15.html, __16.html, __19.html (human-facing links). Read from https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/erbstg_1974/xml.zip
Retrieved: yes (canonical XML, Stand: neugefasst durch Bek. v. 27.2.1997 I 378, zuletzt geändert durch Art. 10 G v. 22.6.2026 I Nr. 192, read 2026-08-30)
Used for: the only tax that reaches this product — every figure now read, and every one of them right. § 3 Abs. 1 Nr. 4 is the limb that catches the death benefit, and it is worth quoting because it never mentions insurance: “jeder Vermögensvorteil, der auf Grund eines vom Erblasser geschlossenen Vertrags bei dessen Tode von einem Dritten unmittelbar erworben wird”. § 15 Abs. 1 puts “alle übrigen Erwerber” in Steuerklasse III, which is where an unmarried partner falls. § 16 Abs. 1’s Freibeträge are confirmed exactly as the entry had them — 500 000 € spouse or Lebenspartner, 400 000 € children, 200 000 € grandchildren, 100 000 € the remaining class I, 20 000 € classes II and III. § 19 Abs. 1’s table confirms the rates: class I opens at 7 % to 75 000 €, class III at 30 % and flat to 600 000 €. The worked illustration checks out against the statute: on 300 000 € to a spouse the charge is nil; to an unmarried partner it is (300 000 − 20 000) × 30 % = 84 000 € — the entry’s figure, to the euro. The [unverified] tags on all of these are removed. They remain std illustrations downstream and are still not citations of a tariff. model.md cites the entry once, to say the Über-Kreuz structure changes the tax outcome and nothing in the cash flows

R16 — VersStG 2021 § 4 Abs. 1 Nr. 5 — Versicherungsteuer exemption for life insurance#

Publisher / doc type: Bundesministerium der Justiz (Versicherungsteuergesetz); federal statute
URL: https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/versstg/__4.html. The cited address was wrong: .../verststg_1996/__4.html returns HTTP 404 — the slug is versstg, not verststg, and the consolidated law is now cited as VersStG 2021
Retrieved: yes (HTML, ~12 kB — this is one of the few gesetze-im-internet per-section pages that serves the text rather than a frameset; read 2026-08-30)
Used for: the absence of a premium-tax line, now sourced precisely rather than asserted, and the tag removed. The section is titled Ausnahmen von der Besteuerung, and the limb that matters is Abs. 1 Nr. 5 Buchst. a: exempt is the payment of the Versicherungsentgelt “für eine Versicherung, durch die Ansprüche auf Kapital-, Renten- oder sonstige Leistungen begründet werden … im Fall des Todes, des Erlebens oder des Alters”. A German RLV premium is therefore billed without insurance premium tax, unlike a French cotisation quoted “TTC”. The entry cited “§ 4” as a whole; the correct citation is § 4 Abs. 1 Nr. 5 Buchst. a, and Satz 2 of that number is worth knowing for the riders — the exemption “gilt nicht für die Unfallversicherung, die Haftpflichtversicherung und sonstige Sachversicherungen”, so a UZ rider is not covered by it. product-spec.md states it in the premium section, technical-notes.md in its contractual-elements table, and model.md in the standardizations closing paragraph — recorded in all three so a reader does not conclude the line was forgotten (gap 19)

R17 — VVG-InfoV, and the PRIIP boundary for a pure protection product#

Publisher / doc type: Bundesministerium der Justiz (VVG-Informationspflichtenverordnung); federal regulation
URL: https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/vvg-infov/ (table of contents; the per-section pages are framesets). Read from https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/vvg-infov/xml.zip
Retrieved: yes (canonical XML, Stand: zuletzt geändert durch Art. 13 G v. 26.5.2026 I Nr. 156, read 2026-08-30)
Used for: the entry with the largest correction in this file. Two of its three claims are confirmed, and the third — the one model.md leaned on hardest — is wrong. Confirmed, and better than asserted. The Effektivkosten duty of § 2 Abs. 1 Nr. 9 is owed only “bei Lebensversicherungsverträgen, die Versicherungsschutz für ein Risiko bieten, bei dem der Eintritt der Verpflichtung des Versicherers gewiss ist” — the same gewiss test as § 169 Abs. 1 VVG R2. So there is no Effektivkosten figure for a term product, and the reason is not merely that a reduction in yield presupposes a yield: the regulation says so on its face. Confirmed. § 4 Abs. 3 disapplies the Informationsblatt regime for Versicherungsanlageprodukte under Regulation (EU) No 1286/2014, which is the boundary the entry describes — a pure protection contract is not a PRIIP and gets no Basisinformationsblatt. (The PRIIPs Regulation itself was not retrieved, so the exclusion of death-only contracts from its scope is still [unverified].) Wrong, and corrected everywhere it appears. The entry concluded that German term-life charge levels are “structurally undisclosed, not merely unretrieved”. They are not. § 2 Abs. 1 Nr. 1 requires the insurer to state, for a life contract, “Angaben zur Höhe der in die Prämie einkalkulierten Kosten; dabei sind die einkalkulierten Abschlusskosten als einheitlicher Gesamtbetrag und die übrigen einkalkulierten Kosten als Anteil der Jahresprämie … auszuweisen”, with the Verwaltungskosten shown separately again — and § 2 Abs. 2 requires those figures in Euro. § 4 Abs. 2 Satz 2 repeats the duty on the face of the Informationsblatt zu Versicherungsprodukten itself, under the heading “Prämie; Kosten” as the last item. Both carrier wordings point the customer there — [S1] § 14 Abs. 1 and [S3] § 16 Abs. 1 — and [S2]’s specimen prints the figures. So the charges are disclosed per contract to the applicant, and only the published rate card is missing. product-spec.md’s charges section and model.md’s charge-parameter rationale have been corrected; the charge parameters stay std, because one carrier’s model case is not a market

R18 — GDV, Die deutsche Lebensversicherung in Zahlen and the Risikoversicherung statistics#

Publisher / doc type: Gesamtverband der Deutschen Versicherungswirtschaft e. V.; annual statistical volume and a ten-year Neugeschäft und Bestand series
URL: not established for the term-assurance breakdown. The sibling research located the statistics landing page and the ten-year series [inherited: kapitallebensversicherung.md R20, R21]
Retrieved: no — no GDV statistical volume or Neugeschäft und Bestand series was retrieved in this pass, and the inherited whole-market Stornoquote figures are still second-hand. Entry kept as a known reference
Used for: a figure the documents deliberately do not use. The inherited whole-market Stornoquote is 2,72 % (2024) and 2,56 % (2023) on the main GDV measure, with a second irreconcilable measure at 1,2 % (2024); both are recorded in product-spec.md. technical-notes.md and model.md cite it to say the book average is dominated by long-dated savings contracts and is not the term-life lapse assumption, which is argued from structure instead and is std at 6 % / 4 % / 3 % — a listed modeling pitfall with a test of its own. The size of the German Risikoversicherung segment is not established at all: no contract count, new business, premium income, aggregate versicherte Summe, average sum insured, average premium or segment lapse rate (gap 13)

R19 — BaFin supervisory material on life insurance conduct and product governance#

Publisher / doc type: Bundesanstalt für Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht; Merkblätter, Auslegungsentscheidungen and risk reports
URL: not established for any term-life-specific item. The sibling research located Merkblatt 01/2023 (VA) zu wohlverhaltensaufsichtlichen Aspekten bei kapitalbildenden Lebensversicherungsprodukten, published May 2023, and the Risiken im Fokus 2026 item on the cost of kapitalbildende products [inherited: kapitallebensversicherung.md R17, R18]
Retrieved: no — no BaFin item was retrieved; the Merkblatt 01/2023 (VA) and the Risiken im Fokus 2026 entry remain inherited from the sibling research, and no supervisory literature specific to German term assurance was located in this pass either (gap 14, still open). Entry kept as a known reference
Used for: a boundary, in product-spec.md’s regulatory context. The Merkblatt’s subject is expressly kapitalbildende life products and its concern is that costs be justified by customer value; a pure Risikolebensversicherung is outside its stated subject matter. It is cited so that a reader does not import an endowment-conduct standard into a term product, and so that the absence is on the record: no supervisory literature specific to German term assurance was located (gap 14)

R20 — Rating and analysis houses on German term-life tariff design#

Publisher / doc type: Franke und Bornberg; MORGEN & MORGEN; ASSEKURATA — the same corpus as [S17], seen from the product side; tariff ratings and market studies
URL: not established
Retrieved: no; the same corpus as [S17], and no term-life rating was read. Entry kept as a known reference
Used for: the reference class behind two market-design facts no statute supplies, both [unverified] and both cited jointly with [S17] in product-spec.md: that the Brutto/Zahlbeitrag spread is a rated criterion, and that the Nachversicherungsgarantie event list, caps and age limits are rated criteria. No rating, criterion weight or observed distribution is asserted

R21 — HGB § 341f and RechVersV — statutory reserving for a term contract#

Publisher / doc type: Bundesministerium der Justiz (Handelsgesetzbuch; Versicherungsunternehmens-Rechnungslegungsverordnung); federal statute and regulation
URL: https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/hgb/__341f.html (human-facing link). Read from https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/hgb/xml.zip. The RechVersV was not read
Retrieved: yes for HGB § 341f (canonical XML, Stand: zuletzt geändert durch Art. 4 G v. 4.2.2026 I Nr. 33, read 2026-08-30). No for the RechVersV
Used for: technical-notes.md’s valuation-and-reserve pointers and model.md’s statement that res_pp_at is a pricing diagnostic and not a provision — both of which stand, but the entry’s description of § 341f did not, and is corrected. Abs. 1 requires the Deckungsrückstellung to be formed “in Höhe ihres versicherungsmathematisch errechneten Wertes einschließlich bereits zugeteilter Überschußanteile … und nach Abzug des versicherungsmathematisch ermittelten Barwerts der künftigen Beiträge (prospektive Methode)”, with a retrospective fallback where a prospective value cannot be determined, and Abs. 2 adds the interest-guarantee test that drives the Zinszusatzreserve. That is all. The section says nothing about “the bases used to determine the premium”, nothing about “a prudent margin”, and nothing about future administration costs where the premium-paying period is shorter than the cover period — those belong to the DeckRV (§ 5 Abs. 1, quoted at R10) and to the RechVersV, which was not read and stays [unverified]. [S4] gives the carrier-side citation chain in full: the Deckungsrückstellung “wird nach § 88 VAG und § 341e und § 341f HGB sowie den dazu erlassenen Rechtsverordnungen berechnet”. The Nullstellung question — whether a negative individual reserve arising from Zillmerung must be floored at zero — is still not established (gap 11) and stays [unverified]; because no reserve of any kind enters result_cf() it does not reach these cash flows. R21 remains a pointer, not a model input

R22 — Solvency II and the German prudential layer#

Publisher / doc type: EIOPA; BaFin; directive, delegated regulation and supervisory material
URL: not established
Retrieved: no — nothing product-specific for German term assurance was located, and no directive, delegated act or supervisory text was retrieved in this pass. Entry kept as a known reference, on the same posture as before
Used for: a pointer only, on the same posture as R21, in product-spec.md’s regulatory context and technical-notes.md’s valuation pointers. Nothing product-specific for German term assurance was located, and no capital, risk-margin, contract-boundary or standard-formula stress figure appears anywhere in this product’s documents. The library publishes gross liability cash flows, undiscounted; the valuation layers consume them and are cited, never reproduced

R23 — German case law on vorvertragliche Anzeigepflicht and Selbsttötung in life insurance#

Publisher / doc type: Bundesgerichtshof and the Oberlandesgerichte; decided cases
URL: not established. No decision is cited by date or file number anywhere in this product’s documents, and none is invented
Retrieved: no — no decision was retrieved, and none is cited by date or file number anywhere in this product’s documents. Entry kept as a known reference class, and gap 20 stays open
Used for: a known reference class rather than a source. German term-life litigation clusters on whether the applicant’s answers to the Gesundheitsfragen were complete and whether the insurer complied with the § 19 Abs. 5 warning requirement R4, and on whether a Selbsttötung inside the three-year window was committed in a state excluding free will R1. technical-notes.md and model.md cite it for one consequence: the mental-illness exception is the ground on which German suicide claims are actually litigated, so § 161 is not a clean contractual switch, and a best-estimate cash-flow model cannot represent that — delib applies the rule as a benefit switch and records the exception as a known simplification. The sibling research located BGH authority on adjacent life questions — the Stornoabzug Bezifferung requirement and the Bewertungsreserven judgment of 20 January 2021, IV ZR 318/19 [inherited: kapitallebensversicherung.md R22, R23] — establishing that the court decides this area regularly and nothing about term assurance. No holding is asserted (gap 20)

Cross-product references ([REG-R#])#

[REG-R#] tags resolve against the cross-product German reference library references/regulatory-and-actuarial-references.md (its own R-numbering, R1–R56, frozen; research provenance in _research/regulatory-actuarial.md). That library was drafted under the same blocked-egress conditions as this file and re-verified in the same pass: its head still carries the drafting account, and each entry now records its own retrieval status on its own line, most of them Retrieved: yes from the canonical XML. Entries cited by the risikolebensversicherung documents:

REG-R1 — Directive 2009/138/EC (Solvency II): the best-estimate-plus-risk-margin frame the projected cash flows feed. Nothing here computes it.
REG-R2 — Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/35: contract boundaries and management actions. Cited to record that this product’s boundary is easier than frlib’s revisable one — the Bruttobeitrag is guaranteed for the term.
REG-R3 — Directive (EU) 2025/2, the Solvency II review, effective 30 January 2027: cited once, to say nothing here implements a 2027 basis.
REG-R6 — VAG §§ 74–110 and § 40, valuation, best estimate, risk margin and the SFCR: the German route by which Solvency II reaches this business.
REG-R8 — VAG § 138, Prämienkalkulation and Gleichbehandlung: the cross-product entry behind R11, and why one declared rate applies per tariff generation and rating cell.
REG-R9 — VAG § 139, Überschussbeteiligung and the Sicherungsbedarf test: cited to say the Bewertungsreserven share is economically empty on a product whose reserve is nil or nominal.
REG-R10 — VAG §§ 140 and 145, the RfB: where a declared Beitragsverrechnung comes out of. The model’s prem_rebate is the contract-level consequence, not the allocation itself.
REG-R11 — VAG §§ 141–143, Verantwortlicher Aktuar and Treuhänder: the office § 163 VVG’s procedure runs through R6, and the office that certifies the tariff bases.
REG-R14 — DeckRV and its § 2, the Höchstrechnungszins: the cap behind rechnungszins = 0.01.
REG-R15 — the Höchstrechnungszins history and the Sechste Verordnung of 19 July 2024 setting 1,00 % from 1 January 2025: the anchor cell’s pricing rate, and the reason the notes say it barely matters here.
REG-R16 — DeckRV § 4, Höchstzillmersätze: the 25 ‰ ceiling zillmer_rate = 0.025 sits at, and half of the reason a gezillmertes Deckungskapital is negative for much of a term contract.
REG-R17 — DeckRV § 5 Abs. 3, the Referenzzins and the Zinszusatzreserve: cited to say it reaches this product only nominally, a reader expecting the discussion that dominates the endowment and annuity products will not find one, and that is a product fact.
REG-R18 — MindZV: the cross-product entry behind R9, carrying the 90 % minimum from the Risikoergebnis that surplus_share is set to.
REG-R19 — RfBV, the collective part of the RfB: cited once, to say the MindZV minimum binds on the HGB accounts and is a transfer to the RfB rather than a payout.
REG-R20 — LVRG 2014: the reform that cut the Höchstzillmersatz to 25 ‰ with effect from 1 January 2015.
REG-R22 — VVG 2008, Kapitel 5 and § 171 (halbzwingende Vorschriften): the chapter this contract sits in, and the reason §§ 161, 165, 168 and 169 cannot be contracted around to the policyholder’s detriment.
REG-R23 — VVG §§ 8 and 152, the Widerrufsrechte: the 30-day window, absorbed into the year-one lapse rate std and not modelled separately.
REG-R24 — VVG § 153: the cross-product entry behind R5, carrying the verursachungsorientiertes Verfahren and the half-share of Bewertungsreserven.
REG-R26 — VVG §§ 150, 159, 160, 161 and 162: the cross-product entry behind R1 and R7 — the Einwilligung every verbundene Leben and Über-Kreuz arrangement needs, the Bezugsberechtigung, and the three-year Selbsttötung window the model implements as suicide_years = 3.
REG-R27 — VVG § 163: the cross-product entry behind R6, and the section the declaration cut does not engage.
REG-R28 — VVG §§ 165–170: the cross-product entry behind R2, R3 and R8 — prämienfreie Versicherung, Kündigung, Rückkaufswert and the Stornoabzug, all of which terminate in nil here.
REG-R29 — VVG §§ 172–177, Kapitel 6, Berufsunfähigkeitsversicherung: cited to place the BUZ rider outside this product and inside delib product 9.
REG-R30 — VVG §§ 19, 37, 38, 157 and 158: the cross-product entry behind R4, carrying the question-bounded Anzeigepflicht and the Altersangabe rule.
REG-R31 — VVG §§ 6, 7 and 7b with the VVG-InfoV: the cross-product entry behind R17, and the source of the Effektivkosten duty that has no application to a product with no yield.
REG-R32 — PRIIPs, Regulation (EU) No 1286/2014: cited for the boundary — a pure protection contract is not a PRIIP, so no Basisinformationsblatt exists for it.
REG-R33 — IDD and § 34d GewO: the distribution frame behind the three-channel market of the variations section.
REG-R34 — Unisex, CJEU C-236/09 and §§ 19, 20 and 33 AGG: the cross-product entry behind R13, and the rule sex_mix_male exists to satisfy.
REG-R35 — BaFin Merkblatt 01/2023 (VA): the cross-product entry behind R19, cited for its limit — it is about kapitalbildende products and does not reach a pure protection contract.
REG-R36 — the BGH line of authority on German life contracts: the cross-product companion to R23, cited for the same reason and with no holding asserted about term assurance.
REG-R45 — EStG § 20 Abs. 1 Nr. 6, the Unterschiedsbetrag, the 12/62 rule and the Mindesttodesfallschutz: the cross-product entry behind R14, cited for the section’s non-application to a pure death benefit.
REG-R46 — ErbStG and the SGB V contribution rules: the cross-product entry behind R15, and the tax fact the Über-Kreuz-Versicherung exists to change.
REG-R47 — Rechnungsgrundlagen erster und zweiter Ordnung, and the DAV as owner of the tables: the framework mort_rate_tar and mort_rate implement, and the reason the model publishes both orders.
REG-R48 — DAV 2008 T and its predecessors: the cross-product entry behind R12 — the table for this product, cited by name and never shipped.
REG-R49 — DAV 2004 R and DAV 2004 R-Bestand: cited once, to say the annuity family is not the basis for a death-benefit contract.
REG-R52 — Destatis Sterbetafeln and the reuse licence: cited to say a population table is the wrong starting point for a replacement decrement basis — without a selection adjustment it overstates claims by a wide margin at the issue ages this product is sold at.
REG-R53 — the German life market in numbers (GDV, BaFin, Assekurata, Map-Report, Morgen & Morgen, Franke und Bornberg): the cross-product companion to R18 and R20, and the entry that records that no term-segment figure was established.
REG-R54 — HGB §§ 341–341o, RechVersV and BerVersV: the cross-product entry behind R21, and the frame in which the Nullstellung question sits.
REG-R55 — IFRS 17, effective 1 January 2023 with no German carve-out: cited once in the valuation pointers; grouping, CSM and risk adjustment are out of scope.
REG-R56 — DAV Fachgrundsätze and the annual Höchstrechnungszins recommendation: the professional standard this model’s documentation sits under.

Provenance note#

Extraction details — which fact would be settled by which document, the twenty mechanics sections the product documents are actually written from, the [std] premium-scale construction of mechanic 16 with its arithmetic shown, and the twenty-three-item gaps-and-caveats register — live in _research/risikolebensversicherung.md. That file is the citation ground truth for the S# and R# numbering used here; its head records the blocked-egress conditions the research was done under, and its entries record the same 2026-08-30 re-verification these do.

The caveats that most constrain what these product documents can claim, in order of how much they constrain the model. Four of the nine were closed or overturned by this pass and are marked so.

~~No price point of any kind was obtained — the largest gap.~~ CLOSED for one carrier [S2]. § 2 Abs. 1 Nr. 1 and § 4 Abs. 2 VVG-InfoV make the pre-contractual Informationsblatt carry the premium and the costs in euro, and a carrier publishes a Muster specimen of it. For a model case at age 41, 19 years, 100 000 €, Cosmos tariff CRB2 shows a monthly Tarifbeitrag of 18,21 EUR against a first-year Zahlbeitrag of 8,20 EUR — a Beitragsverrechnung of about 55 % — and the Comfort tariff CRCB2 gives 23,68 against 10,66 at the same rate, which is § 138 VAG’s Gleichbehandlung visible in two numbers. An older specimen repeats it at 19,75 / 8,89. These are observations of one direct writer and are not generalised: no [S2] figure is a model parameter, and the std scale is unchanged.
~~No carrier AVB was obtained.~~ CLOSED. Three wordings were read in full — the GDV model Allgemeine Bedingungen für die Risikolebensversicherung, Stand 21.07.2025 [S1]; Cosmos LA 803 A (04.26) [S3]; Hannoversche T25, Stand 09/2025 [S4]. Between them they settle the Nachversicherungsgarantie event list, window, caps and age limit (gap 7), the Kriegsklausel and ABC-clause wording, and the smoker qualifying period at twelve months with a switch to smoking treated as a Gefahrerhöhung (gap 22). Still unsettled from an AVB: the Berufsgruppen structure, the health-question look-back periods and the medical-examination thresholds.
~~The statutory basis for the absence of a Rückkaufswert is [unverified].~~ VERIFIED — and the conclusion drawn from it OVERTURNED R2. § 169 Abs. 1 does confine the duty to a risk “bei dem der Eintritt der Verpflichtung des Versicherers gewiss ist”, word for word. But the sentence that followed it here — that nothing paid on Kündigung is “corroborated by uniform market practice and is not in doubt” — is wrong. [S1] § 13 Abs. 8 and [S4] § 13 both convert the contract to a beitragsfreie Versicherung on Kündigung and pay a Rückkaufswert under § 169 VVG, less a Stornoabzug, where the paid-up sum fails a minimum; only [S3] pays nothing at all. The amount is nil or nominal; the design is not. This is the most important thing this pass found, and it is the one open item that reaches the model.
The Sicherheitszuschlag level is not public R12 — still open, the Richtlinie regulating the procedure and not the level, though DeckRV § 5 Abs. 1 now supplies the legal reason a loading must exist: “Die Ableitung von Rechnungsgrundlagen auf der Basis eines besten Schätzwertes genügt nicht” R10. It sets the Brutto/Zahlbeitrag spread almost by itself, and it ships as std m = 1.25 with its calibration and sensitivity stated in full — moving it across 1.0 to 1.5 moves the Bruttobeitrag 22,5 % and the Zahlbeitrag 6,0 %. [S2]’s observed ratio of about 2,22 between the two premiums is now a check against it.
~~German term-life charge levels are structurally undisclosed.~~ WRONG, and corrected R17. § 2 Abs. 1 Nr. 1 VVG-InfoV requires the Abschlusskosten as a single total and the other costs as a share of the annual premium, § 2 Abs. 2 requires them in Euro, and § 4 Abs. 2 puts them on the Informationsblatt under “Prämie; Kosten”. What is missing is a published rate card, not disclosure. [S2] prints, for its model case, acquisition cost of 99,98 EUR = 2,41 % of the Tarifbeitragssumme, other annual costs of 48,52 EUR of which 35,20 EUR administration. The std α at the 25 ‰ ceiling is therefore close to right for this carrier and mis-typed: [S1] § 14 Abs. 3 and [S3] § 16 Abs. 3 both spread the remaining acquisition cost over the premium term, so 25 ‰ bounds the zillmerbare part, not the total [S3] [S12].
No term-segment market or lapse figure exists in the corpus R18 — still open. The whole-market Stornoquote is a book average dominated by long-dated savings contracts and is deliberately not used; the shipped 6 % / 4 % / 3 % is argued from structure and no German figure supports any of it. The structural argument is now stronger, not weaker: [S3] and [S4] both let the policyholder terminate at the end of any month whatever the Zahlweise.
The unisex mixing ratio is proprietary everywhere R13 — still open. The mechanism is law and the date is now read in AGG § 33 Abs. 5; the ratio is a carrier’s own new-business mix, disclosed by nobody, and it moves the tariff a great deal.
No case law is named R23 and no BaFin material specific to term assurance was located R19 — both still open. The absences are recorded rather than papered over, and the endowment conduct standard must not be imported here.
What was read, and what that changes. Fifteen statutory sections were read from the canonical XML with their Stand, three carrier or model wordings and two premium specimens from the publishers’ own sites; where a rule is load-bearing it is now quoted exactly rather than paraphrased. The VVG, the DeckRV, the MindZV, the VAG, the EStG, the ErbStG and the DAV Fachgrundsätze remain living texts and the Höchstzinssatz is reset by regulation, so every date and rate still carries the Stand it was read at and must be re-checked against the instrument before it is relied on. A delib citation is no longer only a pointer where the entry says Retrieved: yes — but it is still a pointer everywhere it says no.