One factual chain; separate competences; no traceability gap

Control 20 September 2026. This page describes a verification and preservation architecture. It does not state that any judge, prosecutor, LAJ, official or third party committed misconduct or a crime. Drafts and publications are not official filings.

The interface to reconstruct

The issue is not reducible to “judge versus Prosecution Service”. Three layers must be kept separate: judicial acts; prosecutorial acts; and the intake, allocation, Judicial Office, LAJ and technology chain that determines which document was ingested, associated and transmitted.

Intake / allocation

Initiating document, references 21/22/24, scanning, original destination, NIG/IUP and every association, reassociation or segregation.

Judicial Office / LAJ

Electronic DP1901 index, 9-Jul material ingestion, 12-Jul order, corpus sent to prosecution, 29-Jul report and service of the later order.

CGPJ / TSJC

Functioning, allocation rules, inspection and responsibility classification without turning governance review into an appeal on judicial merits.

Prosecution / Inspection

Author, office, allocation, corpus, review/instruction and transmission of the 29-Jul report; use of internal records to identify the act and author.

ATLANTE incident: technical hypothesis to test, not a conclusion

The Canary Government reported that an ATLANTE performance incident in Las Palmas was detected on 8 July 2026 and resolved on 17 July, while the system remained operational. The window overlaps critical DP1901 events on 9 and 12 July.

No causation or manipulation is asserted. The correct request is to preserve and test whether the exact NIG/IUP recorded delays, retries, reindexing, queues, associations/reassociations, errors or relevant manual interventions.

CGPJ–FGE coordination

A CGPJ–State Prosecution Service agreement exists for coordinated inspection of courts and prosecutors’ offices, signed on 19 September 2019 and extended through 19 September 2027. The proposal is to request consideration of that mechanism for the common interface — court → transmitted corpus → prosecution → report → court — without claiming a private right to compel a joint inspection and without merging disciplinary powers.

E.G. 745: institutionally determinable attribution

The 14-Sep order identifies a concrete prosecutorial act: a 29 July 2026 report seeking dismissal. The Prosecution Service Regulation provides for preliminary informational steps where possible disciplinary elements are not sufficiently determined, permits indispensable steps to determine identity, and allows referral to the competent body according to nature and object. The question is whether those mechanisms should have been considered before treating attribution as insufficient.

Anti-fragmentation rule

No body is asked to exercise another institution’s powers. Each is asked to preserve and determine what falls within its functions, reason what does not, and where legally appropriate refer or coordinate it while recording sender, recipient, date, reference and object.

Official sources

Status: working and transparency architecture. Any filing is proved only by the exact submitted bytes and official receipt.