Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Retrieval over German tax law depends on how the source texts are cut into retrievable units. A fixed character window of about 1,200 characters is the common default. I measured that this default starts a fragment in the middle of a sentence in 64–91 % of cases, depending on the source, and that list items lose their heading and lead-in phrase. Structure-aligned chunking has already been studied for German statutes on the BGB (Prior, Milanova & Schultz 2026). This preprint applies the idea to German tax law in the LeckerMath working database: every official document is segmented along its own structure (statutes: § › Abs. › Satz/Nr. › Buchst.; court decisions: Leitsatz, Tenor, Tatbestand, Gründe › Rn.; administrative instructions: Abschnitt › Rz./Tz.). The structural path and the lead-in phrase of an enumeration are stored in a separate field. Quality is measured by reassembling each document from its fragments: 331,958 of 333,369 documents (99.58 %, 25 Oct 2026) reassemble without loss. Identical text is folded into groups with one vector per group (734,657 groups, 1.53 million copies). Repairs are organised as a cascade (method → check → freeze what passed → next method on the remainder) rather than as one algorithm re-run over the whole corpus. Version 1.0.2 holds 281,126 documents and 7.53 million fragments. I also report negative results: retrieval was not better than with the old segmentation (96.7 % vs 97.1 %), finer parent/child segmentation scored lower in blind-judged games, and a blind sample found defects in 34 of 75 documents of the working database. Part of a series; overview: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23949487. Files: English version (authoritative) and German version (Deutsche Fassung). Not legal or tax advice.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sergei Sevriukov (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: