# DIP 2/2026 - inaccuracy and analytical-error ledger - 18 September 2026

**Authority:** Fiscalía de la Comunidad Autónoma de Canarias  
**Proceeding:** DIP 2/2026 · NIG 3501670220260000245  
**Purpose:** distinguish source-proved discrepancies from attributed analytical criticism.  
**Rule:** no discrepancy below is, by itself, a finding of deliberate falsehood, prevaricación, capture, coordination or criminality.

| ID | Proposition / treatment | Source-controlled counter-record | Classification | What remains open |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| DIP2-ERR-01 | 6-Mar Decree says 2-Mar ATLANTE check showed no appeal against the 11-Nov-2025 order and later uses non-appeal/finality in the reasoning | 11-Mar registered update expressly says the orders had been appealed; later court record identifies RPL 3319/2025 and RPL 3304/2025 | **DOCUMENTED SOURCE-TO-PREMISE DISCREPANCY** | What ATLANTE actually displayed on 2 Mar; filing/reparto chronology; whether 11-Mar correction was incorporated/read/reconsidered |
| DIP2-ERR-02 | Decree first describes complaint as alleging knowing refusal to examine facts/supervise, but later treats the basis for alleging injustice as unsupported/unclear | 13-Jan complaint and Decree's own recitals identify the alleged mechanism | **INTERNAL TENSION / ATTRIBUTED ANALYTICAL ERROR** | Whether Fiscalía considered the identified circularity/supervision theory and why it regarded it insufficient |
| DIP2-ERR-03 | Decree treats allegations as having been considered by the Mercantile judge | Complaint points to the court's refusal to analyse the underlying acts on merits and to the stated threshold for acting ex officio | **ATTRIBUTED ANALYTICAL ERROR** | Exact evidence before the judge; proposition-by-proposition treatment; distinction between mention and substantive examination |
| DIP2-ERR-04 | Availability/non-use of appeal is used as part of the archive reasoning | Ordinary appellate correction and criminal-character analysis are distinct questions; appeal actually existed at company level | **ATTRIBUTED ANALYTICAL ERROR + DOCUMENTED APPEAL DISCREPANCY** | Exact meaning of “no appeal” and relevance of Gil personally versus LPB/Aweswell as formal appellants |
| DIP2-ERR-05 | Wider historical/supporting material described as apparently unrelated / belonging to other Fiscalía files | 8-Feb amplification asks for integrated review; historical sources may bear on notice, knowledge, continuity and subjective element | **ATTRIBUTED SCOPE/METHODOLOGY ERROR** | Which annexes were actually examined, excluded, or considered only contextually |
| DIP2-ERR-06 | No located substantive response to 11-Mar correction | REGAGE26e00026303869 proves formal presentation and attachment hash | **RESPONSE / TRACEABILITY GAP** | Incorporation, handler, personal access, review, correction, reconsideration or later use |
| DIP2-ERR-07 | Downstream DP1901 treatment depends expressly on DIP2 link | 12-Jul DP1901 providencia links to DIP2; 14-Sep order treats DP1901 as prevaricación and records 29-Jul Fiscal archive request | **PROPAGATION QUESTION** | What DIP2 material was transmitted, whether corrected appeal information travelled, and what corpus the 29-Jul Fiscal received |

## Source-room links

- 13-Jan complaint: evidence/fiscalia/dip-2-2026/full-text/denuncia-inicial-13ene2026-public-transcription.md
- 8-Feb amplification: evidence/fiscalia/dip-2-2026/full-text/ampliacion-08feb2026-public-transcription.md
- 6-Mar decree: evidence/fiscalia/dip-2-2026/full-text/decreto-archivo-dip-2-2026-06mar2026-public-transcription.md
- 9-Mar notice: evidence/fiscalia/dip-2-2026/full-text/oficio-notificacion-dip-2-2026-09mar2026-public-transcription.md
- 11-Mar update: evidence/fiscalia/dip-2-2026/full-text/actualizacion-11mar2026-public-transcription.md
- 11-Mar REGAGE receipt: evidence/fiscalia/dip-2-2026/full-text/registro-11mar2026-public-transcription.md
- 14-Sep DP1901 order: evidence/judicial/dp-1901-2026/full-text/auto-14sep2026-public-transcription.md

## E.G. 745 use

The strongest review proposition is not that DIP 2 proves prosecutorial criminality. It is that a **specific, verifiable factual premise** used in a signed Fiscalía decision was contradicted by the real appellate record and formally corrected on 11 March, while the treatment of that correction remains unproduced. The 14 September DP1901 order then shows a later Fiscal act in a linked judicial proceeding, making source/corpus/author/routing production necessary for any serious inspection review.