The record is not one proceeding. It is a set of legally distinct judicial, prosecutorial, insolvency, administrative, tax, regulatory, professional and public-funds tracks that can intersect around the same chronology, evidence, credit, assets and alleged harm. This map is designed to make those intersections understandable without erasing their legal boundaries.
How to read the lines. A direct procedural relationship is shown only from an explicit canonical parent/link/review field. A context or convergence bridge explains why separate files may need to be read together. Context does not mean joinder, coordination, knowledge, wrongdoing or liability; equally, a separate docket number does not establish factual, evidential, patrimonial or causation independence.
A map of maps, not a spider web
Start anywhere. Read by procedural track, move approximately through time, or choose one proceeding and trace it both forwards and backwards. The trace view inverts explicit parent/link data so a child can lead back to its origin and a parent can reveal its recorded descendants.
The non-routable canonical source identity remains PROCEEDINGS_MASTER_REGISTER. The browser reads only the allowlisted derivative assets/data/proceedings-master-public-v1.json. This page is a controlled public projection, not a second case register.
Institutional completeness test
If one of these files is being decided, reviewed or supervised
This record does not ask any court, prosecutor or supervisory body to pretend that separate proceedings are one case, and it does not ask for a predetermined result. The narrower question is methodological: can a decision in one legally separate file be complete if a materially relevant part of the same asset, credit, insolvency administration, evidence, control history or alleged-harm chain sits in another procedural silo?
Jurisdictional boundaries do not eliminate the need for institutional memory. A legally correct view of one file can still be materially incomplete if evidence necessary to understand it has been left in another file. The burden is not to collapse the cases. It is to identify their intersections accurately, expose contradictory premises where they exist, and keep the proof status of every proposition visible.
Formal-procedure boundary. This public map is not an extra-record filing, appeal, complaint or personación. Material relied upon in a live proceeding must be put before the competent organ through the lawful procedural route. The map's role is transparency, traceability and cross-record verification.
Audiencia Provincial de Las Palmas
Three appellate objects. One concursal record to test.
Calificación:RPL 2523/2025.
AC separation/removal:RPL 3304/2025, with RPL 3319/2025 recorded as accumulated/linked within that separation-removal track.
AC fees/remuneration:RPL 421/2026.
These are not one legal appeal. They are, however, three appellate objects arising from the same Concurso 36/2012 estate and the same insolvency administration, with overlapping chronology, evidence, the Administrador Concursal's role, the productive unit/hotel and alleged patrimonial consequences.
The institutional question is not whether they share one roll number—they do not. It is whether any one can be understood completely without recognising the material record sitting in the other two.
Convergence corridors
What becomes invisible when these routes are read alone?
CaixaBank / Valencia — VAL-CIV-001, ORD 1859/2023-9, JPI nº27 Valencia, NIG 46250-42-1-2023-0049579. The signed court diligence dated 6 November 2025 records the current hearing for 28 January 2027 at 10:00. This is the already-existing Master Register identity previously shown only as “Procedimiento 1859/2023”; its corrected fields are now physically consolidated in the canonical CSV and no second case was created. The separate Aweswell–CaixaBank banking/financial-products claim is directly relevant to the historic financing package, Bankia enforcement, Arrecife Mortgage Enforcement 90/2012 and the economic history intersecting with Concurso 36/2012 and the hotel assets.
Arrecife mortgage enforcement / dación / title. A separate enforcement route can still affect the same secured-credit and hotel-asset chain. The relevant cross-check is estate treatment, title, satisfaction, liquidation, accounting and productive-unit consequences.
Meeting Point / FTI. Pre-concurso or insolvency material must be tested against any source-backed Sun Park / Lava Verde / Club SEI operator, stock, exploitation, control, security/return or public-money connection. The project's contention that the connection was or should have been recognised remains an attributed proposition; deliberate concealment requires actor-specific proof.
Cuatrecasas / cambiario / La Laguna / Matkator. Matkator remains a separate legal person. The analysis nevertheless tests the professional-work, asset/right, enforcement, chronology and alleged patrimonial bridges back to Sun Park and Concurso 36/2012.
Ministerio Fiscal. Each Fiscalía office and expediente remains distinct, but the responses should also be readable as one institutional-response chronology: what corpus did each office receive, what was referred or narrowed, what cross-file relevance was recognised, and is a unitary acknowledgement of the alleged intra- and extraconcursal harm located?
Historical Montelanza / Molina possession and exploitation proceedings. Removal, possession, exploitation and desahucio litigation forms part of the long-run control genealogy of the hotel. Any documented party substitution or recharacterisation toward Monterecco / later Pink must be traced through its exact procedural basis and then tested against what was, or was not, carried into the concurso record.
For any institutional reader
Before accepting the isolated file as the whole relevant record
What exactly was before this organ? What materially connected proceeding, event, asset, credit or evidence family existed elsewhere at the same time? Was that connection formally communicated or otherwise procedurally cognisable? Does another file proceed from an inconsistent factual premise? What disappears if this file is read alone?
The strongest safeguard against an erroneous narrative is not another assertion. It is the ability to move proposition → source → proceeding → response → consequence → related proceeding, and then backwards again.
No conclusion is requested here. The request is methodological: do not decide the part without first testing whether the whole materially changes the part.
A-SCAN 360 · Case Prism
One controlled fact across the files currently mapped. Coverage gaps stay visible.
The visual layer below materialises 19 propositions across 12 stable lanes—228 structurally explicit cells, including cells marked outside scope or not located. Shared proposition coordinates currently cover 45 of 106 exact public proceedings; 61 have no current Case Prism coordinate. All 106 of 106 exact public proceedings nevertheless have a controlled trace, isolation route, audited finite-test model and a public exact-file Decision-Dependency Register. Case Prism reads one controlled proposition horizontally across separate proceedings. Parallel lanes keeps a stable column for every lane in chronological order. Isolation test selects one exact public proceeding, fades everything outside that file and restores the full corpus instantly.
A reader lens can reprioritise the same record for a court, the Audiencia Provincial, Ministerio Fiscal, judicial supervision, a public authority, a journalist/researcher, an affected owner/creditor or a professional/funder. The lens changes order, questions and source path—not facts, source status or legal boundaries.
Reading discipline. Each cell separates relationship status from treatment in the file and opens a controlled source path, evidence status, contrary record, decision dependency and finite confirm/refute test. No visual cell establishes notice, admissibility, coordination, wrongdoing, liability or a duty to decide another proceeding.
Building the map from the canonical register…
The map is navigation, not the evidence itself
A material proposition still needs the underlying filing, decision, institutional original, registered receipt, ACTA, communication or other appropriate source. Open reference gaps remain visible because uncertainty is part of the procedural record. NOT LOCATED is not DID NOT EXIST. The purpose of this map is to help a reader discover the correct next node, understand why it may matter and distinguish what is documented, alleged, inferred, contradicted or still unresolved.