Riigi Teataja correction: Audiitortegevuse seadus § 952(1)
A narrow, source-backed consolidation omission found through deterministic amendment replay.
Jurisdiction: Estonia
Publisher: Riigi Teataja
Act: Auditors Activities Act (Audiitortegevuse seadus), act ID 107012025013
Provision: § 952(1)
Summary
During LawVM development, a replay check flagged that the consolidated text of Audiitortegevuse seadus § 952(1) appeared not to include a phrase inserted by amendment act RT I, 07.01.2025, 1.
The missing phrase was või kestlikkusaruande audiitorkontrolli.
Riigi Teataja reviewed the report and corrected the consolidated text. The correction was also made in the English translation, according to Riigi Teataja's reply.
Source amendment
The amending act RT I, 07.01.2025, 1 entered into force on 17 January 2025. In § 2 point 65, it says that the existing text of § 952 becomes subsection (1), and that after the word ülevaatust the phrase või kestlikkusaruande audiitorkontrolli is inserted.
Public source: RT I, 07.01.2025, 1.
Consolidated text after correction
The current consolidated text now includes the inserted phrase in § 952(1). Immediately below that subsection, Riigi Teataja shows a Veaparandus correction notice stating that the phrase was added after ülevaatust under Riigi Teataja Act § 10(4).
Public source: Audiitortegevuse seadus, act ID 107012025013.
What LawVM demonstrated
This is a narrow consolidation omission. It shows that deterministic amendment replay can act as an independent QA layer for consolidated legislation: replay the amendment stream, compare it to the consolidated surface, and investigate cases where the source-backed replay and the official surface diverge.
The useful claim is not that LawVM is always right. The useful claim is that replay can produce concrete, source-backed candidates that official publishers can verify and correct.
What this does not prove
This does not prove that Riigi Teataja is unreliable. It does not prove that LawVM is complete for Estonia. It does not prove that all replay-vs-consolidation differences are publisher errors.
It proves one concrete case: a LawVM-reported omission was reviewed by the publisher, confirmed as described, and corrected in the public consolidated text.
Why it matters
In Estonia, consolidated law is an authoritative surface. That makes replay a consistency-checking layer rather than a replacement for the official text. A case like this is useful because it is externally reviewed, publicly visible, and small enough to audit from source amendment to corrected consolidation.
For broader context, see the jurisdiction status page and Truth Surfaces in Legal Information Systems.