Maintain search terms and court reference data

Court code synchronization and partner terminology review are different jobs. Synchronization copies the upstream catalogs; it cannot establish that a glossary definition, search synonym or checklist is correct. This inventory covers the October 13, 2026 audit (b4be391). Use the maintenance register for named owners, sources, scope, approvals and review dates. Roles below are proposed responsibilities; no person has been assigned by this documentation.

Data inventory

Paths are relative to efile_app/. Local overrides use each file's schema; there is no universal court_specific_requirements override for every dataset.

Asset	Owner/reviewer to assign	What changes / scope	Refresh after deploy
EFSP court, category, case-type and filing catalogs	Proxy/court code steward; LITEfile operator checks copy health	Authoritative provider names and IDs, separated by environment/jurisdiction/court/new or existing stage	Automatic sync or operator resync; operations checklist
efile/data/filing_code_search.yaml	Partner terminology editor + court/legal reviewer; search maintainer	Synonyms, stems, stop words, matching/explanation rules; changes discovery, not a submitted Tyler code	Restart web/workers to clear cached rules; rebuild search index
efile/data/filing_concept_definitions.yaml	Partner editor + local court/legal reviewer	Concept descriptions/sources with jurisdiction, explicit county mapping and exact-court precedence	Web restart; response-only definitions, no catalog rebuild
efile/data/filing_code_facets.yaml	Partner editor + search maintainer	Labels/classification rules for result facets and local overrides	Web restart; response-only facets, no catalog rebuild
efile/data/case_type_guidance.yaml	Local legal-help editor + court/legal reviewer	Case-family descriptions, source links, role/context/amount filters and jurisdiction/county/court overrides	Web restart; no catalog rebuild
efile/data/legal_glossary.yaml	Partner terminology editor + legal reviewer	Short meanings for matched court terms; general terms with jurisdictions overrides	Web restart to clear glossary cache; no catalog rebuild
efile/data/zip_counties.json.gz, efile/utils/zip_to_county_il.py	Geography-data maintainer + jurisdiction implementer	Census ZIP/county relationships; Illinois PO-box-aware supplement	Rebuild artifact if source changes; restart cached readers and run ZIP examples
MACourts/VTCourts packages and State YAML court_selector	Package maintainer + jurisdiction/court reviewer	Town/address/ZIP mapping into the live provider court list	Review dependency update and selector fixtures; restart application
Massachusetts docket inference	Jurisdiction implementer + Massachusetts court reviewer	Conservative hints in efile/services/docket_courts.py; confirm ambiguous cases	Regression fixtures and staging lookup; deploy code
Appellate lower-court mappings	Jurisdiction implementer + appellate court reviewer	State YAML court_selector choices and lower-court behavior, tracked in #276	Test source court/county and appellate alternatives; update fixtures when routes/names change

For exact discovery schemas and local override precedence, retain the jurisdiction reference. Definitions/facets decorate results outside cached search responses. Indexed terms/explanations need an index refresh. None of these aids creates a provider code or determines legal eligibility. Geographic and inferred-court suggestions always need filer confirmation; overlapping or unrecognized locations must not be documented as definitive jurisdiction decisions.

Correction and catalog-drift recipe

1. Receive the report with jurisdiction, court, environment, case stage, exact provider label/code, query, observed result and expected result. Use synthetic examples; omit names, docket numbers and document contents from shared issues.
2. Inspect current provider metadata and local sync freshness. If the upstream label is wrong or missing, escalate to the code steward. If discovery wording is wrong, identify the curated file above. Do not fix terminology by inventing a Tyler code. Vermont “Complaint” versus “Initial Filing” remains partner terminology work in #296.
3. Record the authoritative source, supported state/court/case stage, proposed wording and reviewer. Check broad synonyms do not imply remedies are legally interchangeable. Give local definitions their own source rather than inheriting a conflicting general citation.
4. Edit the smallest applicable override. Run representative searches and regressions below: positive query, ambiguous query, no-match query, another jurisdiction, new/existing stages, ZIP filtering and cleared filters. Inspect result explanations and accessible labels, not only the first result.
5. Review changed language/screenshots and translations using the copy workflow. Data-file language is not automatically translated merely by running extract_config_text; inspect the actual translation support for that renderer.
6. Deploy/restart/reindex as the table requires. On staging, apply a selected search path and verify it against the current live lists. Post-sync, recheck exact-code filing_guidance rules and name-bound availability/checklist rules.
7. Record content and technical approval, validation links, deployed scope and next review. Roll back the curated file and rebuild again when its indexed rules changed. Keep the last good catalog; do not purge it to repair wording.

cd efile_app
uv run pytest -q efile/tests/test_filing_code_search.py efile/tests/test_case_type_guidance.py
# Only when indexed search/explanation rules changed, in the target environment:
uv run python manage.py refresh_filing_code_index --rebuild --jurisdiction vermont

Record representative searches in the asset's register entry, for example:

Scope	Search	Review expectation
Illinois, new, name change	change my name	Current court choices; distinguish adult/child options without asserting eligibility
Massachusetts, existing, housing	summary process answer	Existing-case context and appropriate local explanation; keep ambiguous results visible
Vermont, new, civil	complaint	Inspect offered provider labels and unresolved #296 wording; do not invent an “authoritative” filing type
Any supported state	Nonsense query, unknown ZIP, then clear ZIP	Recoverable no-match/location state; statewide results return when filter cleared

The ZIP rebuild script takes two positional file paths: the Census 2020 national ZCTA/county relationship file and the extracted national county-subdivision Gazetteer. From efile_app, after obtaining those source files, run:

uv run python scripts/build_zip_counties.py tab20_zcta520_county20_natl.txt 2020_Gaz_cousubs_national.txt

It writes efile/data/zip_counties.json.gz. Record source vintage, retrieval date and artifact diff, then update ZIP/selector fixtures. MACourts/VTCourts source changes, provider route renames and appellate mapping changes similarly require fixture review rather than accepting a dependency update solely because it installs.

Review record for each dataset

Use one entry per local override or meaningful review scope in the register: content owner, technical owner, court/legal reviewer, source URL/version, last substantive review, next date/event trigger, jurisdiction/court/stage, representative searches and results, approval decision and rollback evidence. A code sync timestamp or successful HTTP request is not a substantive review. Monthly terminology review and post-sync drift checks are proposed starting points awaiting owner approval.