# Verification record — `pl/ceidg/wniosek-o-wpis-do-ceidg` v1.0.0 This file is the **source-review record** for this document version, per the [`manual-source-review-v1`](../../../../../practices/manual-source-review-v1.md) practice. It documents the provenance of the published fields and states the current verification claim honestly. ## Current claim - **`status`:** `draft` - **`verification.method`:** `manual-source-review-v1` - **`verification.lastVerifiedAt`:** `2026-07-07` This is a `GovSchema Standard Research` cycle (**GOV-1671**). Poland opened as the registry's 22nd jurisdiction in the prior cycle (GOV-1666, National ID), with its other five verticals (Passport, DMV, Business Formation, Taxes, Visa) left as open, unscreened backlog. This cycle's brief recommended screening Poland's remaining verticals in order: DMV, then Business Formation (CEIDG sole-trader registration or KRS/S24 company registration), then Taxes, Visa, Passport. ## Why this candidate ### Candidates screened and rejected 1. **Poland — DMV (vehicle registration).** Screened first, per the brief's recommended order. The national wzór (template) is set by Załącznik nr 1 to Rozporządzenie Ministra Infrastruktury z dnia 8 listopada 2024 r. w sprawie rejestracji i oznaczania pojazdów, wymagań dla tablic rejestracyjnych oraz wzorów innych dokumentów związanych z rejestracją pojazdów (Dz.U. 2024 poz. 1709). The direct government host (`isap.sejm.gov.pl`) is Incapsula-bot-gated on a plain fetch, but a third-party mirror of the same gazetted PDF (`n-22-4.dcs.redcdn.pl/.../a1ecb0a5-8cb2-47ea-907f-430bba84c320.pdf`, hosting a TVN news article's own attached copy of the regulation) served the identical 4-page annex set directly. Parsed with `pdfjs-dist`: zero AcroForm annotations (a static, hand-fill/print template, like this cycle's other Polish source below), but its own printed body is thin — Załącznik nr 1's civilian-registration wzór has only **7 numbered data items** (vehicle type/purpose, make/type/model, year of production, VIN/chassis number, previous registration number, vehicle-card number, EU import date) plus a free-text attached-documents list and an individual number-plate request line; Załącznik nr 2 is a distinct military/foreign -authority variant, not applicable to an ordinary civilian applicant. Not picked: genuine and current, but materially thinner than the Business Formation candidate below on this registry's own bar for field coverage, even though sourcing strength (unauthenticated, no CAPTCHA/WAF once past the Incapsula-gated primary host) is otherwise comparable. Left open as a real, ready-to-author backlog candidate for a future cycle. 2. **Poland — KRS/S24 company registration.** Considered as the alternative Business Formation pathway the brief named. Poland's company (spółka) registration for a limited-liability or joint-stock company runs through the S24 online system (`ekrs.ms.gov.pl`), an authenticated, session-based web application with standardized-articles templates chosen inside the portal — no static, downloadable, field-level form was found. Not picked in favor of CEIDG-1 (see below), which serves the much larger population of natural persons registering as sole traders and has a genuine, unauthenticated, current PDF source. ### Candidate picked: Poland Business Formation — CEIDG-1 CEIDG-1, "Wniosek o wpis do Centralnej Ewidencji i Informacji o Działalności Gospodarczej," is the single form through which a natural person registers a sole proprietorship (jednoosobowa działalność gospodarcza) with Poland's Central Registration and Information on Business. It is directly attached, unauthenticated, to `ceidg.gov.pl`'s own production file server, with no login/CAPTCHA/WAF gate. Unlike the DMV candidate above (also a static, non-AcroForm template), CEIDG-1's own printed layout is fully self-documenting: 30 numbered top-level sections (many with lettered/decimal sub-items, e.g. `06.2`, `10.1`, `26.1`), every one carrying its own plain-Polish field label directly in the PDF's text layer — no coordinate-matching or page-rendering was needed to resolve any field's identity, the same "read the printed reference numbers directly" technique `es/aeat/declaracion-censal-personas-fisicas-modelo-030` and `es/aeat/declaracion-censal-alta-actividad-economica-modelo-036` used for their own non-AcroForm/generically-named sources. This is the strongest single-pass Business Formation source examined this cycle. ## Sources examined ### Source 1 (primary `source`, the form) - **Authority:** Centralna Ewidencja i Informacja o Działalności Gospodarczej (CEIDG), operated by the Ministerstwo Rozwoju i Technologii (MRiT). - **Document:** CEIDG-1, form version **1.8.9** (printed on every page footer), "Wniosek o wpis do Centralnej Ewidencji i Informacji o Działalności Gospodarczej." - **URL:** (directly retrieved via `curl`, HTTP 200, no login; 5 pages, 89,469 bytes). - **Retrieved / reviewed:** 2026-07-07. - **Extraction method:** downloaded directly, then parsed with `pdfjs-dist` (`legacy/build/pdf.mjs`). `page.getAnnotations()` returned **zero** AcroForm widgets on all 5 pages — this is a static, print/hand-fill template, not a fillable PDF — so `page.getTextContent()` was used instead, reading the form's own printed section numbers (`01.`–`30.`, with `06.1`/`06.2`/`10.1`/`10.2`/`12.1`/`12.2`/`13.x`/`26.1`/`26.2`/`28.x` sub-numbering) and every field's own inline label text, in full, across all 5 pages. - **What it confirms:** all 30 top-level sections and their sub-items' labels and checkbox options verbatim (e.g. the closed `rodzaj wniosku` five-way choice on the cover page; the four `oświadczam... w formie` taxation-method checkboxes in §18 including the still-present `karty podatkowej` option; the `12` mandatory-insurance three-way choice; the `03.15` statutory declaration's exact wording, reproduced verbatim in this document's `documents[].statement`). ### Source 2 (corroborating, the official instruction guide) - **Document:** "Instrukcja wypełniania wniosku CEIDG-1 [do wersji wniosku 3.1]," dated 2025-01-07 (per its own footer), published by Ministerstwo Rozwoju i Technologii. - **URL:** (directly retrieved, HTTP 200, no login; 75 pages, 670,799 bytes). - **Retrieved / reviewed:** 2026-07-07. - **What it confirms:** a full field-by-field explanation for the "A. Wypełnianie wniosku o wpis przedsiębiorcy do CEIDG" (new-registration) pathway this document models, including: the minimum required-section list for a new registration (REGON, identity-document type/number, citizenship, residential address, business name, short name, start date, PESEL, NIP, surname/first name/parents' first names/place-of-birth/date-of-birth, business address); the closed three-option taxation-form list as presented to a *new* registrant (na zasadach ogólnych / podatek liniowy / ryczałt — confirming `tax_card` is a legacy/continuing-case-only option, disclosed as judgment call 3 below); the closed mandatory-insurance three-way choice (ZUS / KRUS / insured abroad) and which follow-on section each selection requires; the PKD-code rule that only one code may be marked as `przeważający` (predominant/primary) and that unlimited additional codes continue onto the CEIDG-RD annex; and the full list of five continuation annexes (CEIDG-RD, CEIDG-MW, CEIDG-RB, CEIDG-SC, CEIDG-PN) plus two process-specific annexes (CEIDG-ZS, CEIDG-POPR) not relevant to a new-registration filing. **Version-numbering note:** this instruction guide's own section numbers (unprefixed `1., 2., 5.1, 6., 7., 9., 9.1, 9.2, 10., 14.`...) do not match the downloaded form's zero-padded numbering (`03., 04., 06.1, 06.2, 09., 10.1, 10.2, 12., 12.1, 12.2, 17.`...), meaning the guide targets a slightly earlier form revision than the "1.8.9"-stamped PDF this document is sourced from. This was checked field-by-field rather than assumed harmless: every field the guide names by label (Płeć, Nazwisko, Imię, Imię ojca, Imię matki, Miejsce urodzenia, PESEL, Data urodzenia, NIP, REGON, Rodzaj dokumentu tożsamości, Seria i numer dokumentu tożsamości, Posiadane obywatelstwa, Adres zamieszkania, Nazwa firmy, Nazwa skrócona, Data rozpoczęcia działalności, Przewidywana liczba pracujących, Przeważający kod PKD, Adres do doręczeń, Stałe miejsce wykonywania działalności, obowiązkowe ubezpieczenie, Urząd skarbowy) is present with the same meaning and the same required/optional status in the downloaded PDF's own §03/§04/§06/§08/§09/§10.1/§10.2/§12/§17 — no substantive content drift found, only a renumbering. ## Field inventory (Phase 2) All 81 `fields[]` entries and both `documents[]` entries, and their exact CEIDG-1 section reference, are listed inline in `schema.json`'s own `sourceRef` per field/document. Summary by section: | Section | Representative fields | Required for this v1.0.0? | |---|---|---| | §03 Dane wnioskodawcy | `gender`, `identityDocumentType(Other)`, `identityDocumentNumber`, `pesel`, `nip`, `regon`, `surname`, `firstName`, `maidenSurname`, `secondFirstName`, `fathersFirstName`, `mothersFirstName`, `placeOfBirth`, `dateOfBirth`, `citizenship(Other)`, `lawfulActivityDeclaration` | Mostly required — see judgment call 1 (`nip`/`regon` left optional) | | §04 Adres zamieszkania | `residenceCountry`...`residenceAtypicalLocationDescription` (11 fields) | Country/city/house number required; the rest optional per the source's own layout | | §05 ePUAP | `epuapAddress`, `epuapAddressWaived` | Both optional | | §06–08 Dane firmy | `businessName`, `expectedNumberOfWorkers`, `primaryPkdCode`(+`secondary`/`tertiary`), `additionalPkdCodesAnnexAttached`, `shortName`, `businessStartDate` | `businessName`, `primaryPkdCode`, `businessStartDate` required (see judgment call 2 for the PKD-slot count) | | §09 Dane do kontaktu | `phoneNumber`...`contactDataSharingOptOut` (5 fields) | All optional | | §10.1 Adres do doręczeń | `correspondenceAddressee`...`correspondencePostBox` (8 fields) | All optional (see judgment call 4 for the dropped country/voivodeship/powiat/gmina sub-fields) | | §10.2 Stałe miejsce wykonywania działalności | `noFixedBusinessLocation` + 10 address fields | `noFixedBusinessLocation` required; `businessLocationCity` `requiredWhen` it is `false` | | §12 Ubezpieczenie | `mandatoryInsuranceScheme`, `zusContributionObligationStartDate` | `mandatoryInsuranceScheme` required; the date `requiredWhen` scheme is `zus` | | §17–19 Podatki i księgowość | `currentTaxOfficeName`, `taxationForm`, `pit16Attached`, `accountingBooksNoticeSubmitted` | `taxationForm` required; `pit16Attached` `requiredWhen` it is `tax_card` | | §22–24 Zakład pracy chronionej / spółka cywilna | `shelteredWorkshopStatus`, `soleActivityViaCivilPartnership`, `civilPartnershipNip`/`Regon` | `soleActivityViaCivilPartnership` required; the NIP/REGON pair `requiredWhen` it is `true` | | §25 Wspólność majątkowa | `maritalPropertyCommunity`, `maritalPropertyCeasedDate` | The enum is required; the date is optional | | §26.1 Rachunek bankowy | `businessBankAccountCountry`...`businessBankAccountForTaxRefund` (6 fields) | All optional | | §03.15 / §29 declaration & annex pointer | `documents[].lawfulActivityAttestation`, `documents[].pkdContinuationAnnex` | Attestation required; annex `requiredWhen` `additionalPkdCodesAnnexAttached` | Total: **81 fields** plus **2 `documents[]` entries**. No `crossFieldValidation` rules or `exclusivityGroups` are modelled: every conditional relationship found is a simple two-value `requiredWhen` gate against a field this schema also defines as `required: true` (so its value is always present in valid data — see judgment call 5 on why this direction was chosen throughout). ## Access notes and judgment calls 1. **`nip` and `regon` are modelled as plain optional strings, dropping the form's own "Nie posiadam NIP"/"Nie posiadam numeru REGON" negative checkboxes entirely**, rather than as a `requiredWhen`-gated pair (unlike `pesel`, which is modelled `required: true` outright, dropping its analogous "Nie posiadam numeru PESEL" branch — the same simplification `pl/mswia/wniosek-o-wydanie-dowodu-osobistego` made for its own foreign -applicant edge case). Reasoning: for a brand-new registration, NIP is typically not yet held (CEIDG-1 itself is what causes one to be assigned, per the instruction guide's own "Na podstawie wniosku CEIDG-1, uzyskasz numer NIP i REGON" statement) and REGON is assigned by GUS as a *consequence* of this same filing — so leaving both optional, with no forced negative-declaration field, models the common case accurately without fabricating a `requiredWhen` gate on a checkbox this cycle chose not to carry as its own field. A rare foreigner-without-PESEL applicant pathway remains out of scope for v1.0.0. 2. **PKD business-activity codes are modelled as three flat slots (`primaryPkdCode`, `secondaryPkdCode`, `tertiaryPkdCode`) plus a boolean annex pointer, not the form's own 9 numbered slots or its "no limit on the number of codes" rule.** GovSchema v0.3 has no repeating/array field type (GSP-0009, not yet folded into this spec line), so per this registry's established convention for small bounded repeating structures (e.g. `sg/acra/sole-proprietorship-registration`'s own `primarySsicCode`/`secondarySsicCode` pair), this document models the one mandatory `przeważający` (predominant) code plus a small, useful number of additional codes, and represents "more codes than fit" via `additionalPkdCodesAnnexAttached` and the matching `documents[].pkdContinuationAnnex` entry rather than fabricating an array type the spec does not have. 3. **`taxationForm`'s enum keeps all four checkbox options printed on the live form (`general_rules`/`flat_tax`/`lump_sum_revenue`/`tax_card`), even though the corroborating instruction guide's own new-registration walkthrough (§A "Wypełnianie wniosku o wpis przedsiębiorcy do CEIDG") lists only the first three as available choices for a first-time filer.** `karta podatkowa` (tax card) was closed to new elections by the 2022 "Polski Ład" tax reform and remains selectable on CEIDG-1 only for already-enrolled taxpayers filing a different request type (change/ continuation) — this document keeps the literal, currently-printed enum (since the checkbox and its `pit16Attached` companion field are still physically present on the version-1.8.9 form examined this cycle) and discloses the practical new-registration restriction here in prose rather than either fabricating a narrower enum the form itself does not enforce structurally, or silently dropping a real option. 4. **The correspondence address (§10.1) and permanent-place-of-business address (§10.2) blocks omit their own `Kraj`/`Województwo`/`Powiat`/ `Gmina-Dzielnica` sub-fields** (kept only for the residential address in §04), following the same reduced-address-block convention `pl/mswia/wniosek-o-wydanie-dowodu-osobistego` used for its own correspondence-address fields (5 sub-fields, not the full 11-field residential-address shape). Disclosed as a scope trim for schema-size management, not a source-fidelity gap — every dropped sub-field is documented on the live form and would be a natural MINOR addition to a future version. 5. **Every `requiredWhen` gate in this document targets a field this same schema defines as `required: true` (`identityDocumentType`, `citizenship`, `noFixedBusinessLocation`, `mandatoryInsuranceScheme`, `taxationForm`, `soleActivityViaCivilPartnership`) — never an optional/possibly-absent field.** This is a deliberate design choice to avoid the absent-field-ambiguity class of bug this registry has previously hit (`notEquals`/`equals` gates against a field that might simply not be present in submitted data, as documented in this project's own internal notes on the `notEquals ""`-against-an-absent-optional-field pattern). Concretely, this is why `noPesel`/`noNip`/`noRegon`-style negative checkboxes were dropped entirely (judgment call 1) rather than kept as optional gating flags, and why `noFixedBusinessLocation` — which the live form presents as an ordinary unforced checkbox — is instead modelled here as `required: true`: an applicant must explicitly answer `true`/`false`, so `businessLocationCity`'s `requiredWhen: {equals: false}` gate always evaluates against a real, present boolean value in any conformant dataset. 6. **§13 (KRUS-specific declarations, five sub-items about a farmer's prior agricultural-insurance history), §14–16 (suspension/resumption/ cessation-of-activity blocks), §20–21 (external-accounting-firm details and the accounting-records storage address), §26.2 (a second, personal bank account), §27 (foreign tax/insurance identification numbers), and §28.x (power-of-attorney details) are all out of scope for v1.0.0.** §14–16 apply only to the change/suspend/resume/deregister request types this document deliberately excludes (see the title/description's own scope statement); §13, §20–21, §26.2, §27, and §28.x are all real but comparatively rare optional blocks on a first-time registration, each a natural candidate for a future MINOR revision. 7. **No repeating/array field type (GSP-0009).** Not modelled anywhere in this document beyond the PKD-code trim already discussed in judgment call 2 — the additional-business-location continuation (§11.x, its own CEIDG-MW annex), the multiple-civil-partnership continuation (its own CEIDG-SC annex), the multiple-power-of-attorney continuation (its own CEIDG-PN annex), and the multiple-bank-account continuation (its own CEIDG-RB annex) are each genuinely unbounded repeating structures this registry has consistently deferred pending GSP-0009 (see e.g. `mx/sat/preinscripcion-rfc-persona-moral`'s own deferred repeating addresses/activities). 8. **PKD code fields use the pattern `^[0-9]{2}\.[0-9]{2}\.[A-Z]$`** (e.g. `47.11.Z`), confirmed against both the form's own "symbol (5-znakowy) wg PKD 2007" label and the instruction guide's "(5 znaków)" callout — dot-separated 2-digit/2-digit/letter, not five bare characters. ## Test run (Phase 3) No live submission was attempted: CEIDG-1's paper-filing channel requires an in-person visit or a notarized signature, and its electronic-filing channel (via biznes.gov.pl/CEIDG) requires a real Polish trusted profile (profil zaufany) or qualified electronic signature — submitting fabricated applicant data against Poland's live business register is not a safe or reversible action. Instead, one fully hand-constructed mock record was built from this document's own field inventory and validated with a purpose-written script (not just eyeballed) that re-implements spec v0.3's `type`/`validation`/ `required`/`requiredWhen`/`documents[]` semantics directly from `schema.json` and checks the packet against them field-by-field; it is committed as this document's conformance fixture (`conformance/pl/ceidg/wniosek-o-wpis-do-ceidg/1.0.0/application-packet.json`). **Scenario (committed fixture) — an adult Polish resident registering her first sole-proprietorship graphic-design business.** `gender: "kobieta"`, `identityDocumentType: "dowod_osobisty"` (so `identityDocumentTypeOther` is correctly omitted), `pesel: "85051512345"` (11 digits), `surname: "Kowalska"`, `firstName: "Anna"`, `citizenship: "polskie"` (so `citizenshipOther` is correctly omitted), `lawfulActivityDeclaration: true`, a full residential address in Warsaw, `businessName: "Anna Kowalska Projektowanie Graficzne"`, `primaryPkdCode: "74.10.Z"` (specialised design activities — a real, correctly-formatted PKD code) with a `secondaryPkdCode` also supplied, `businessStartDate: "2026-08-01"`, a distinct correspondence address, `noFixedBusinessLocation: false` (so `businessLocationCity` is correctly required and supplied), `mandatoryInsuranceScheme: "zus"` (so `zusContributionObligationStartDate` is correctly required and supplied), `taxationForm: "general_rules"` (so `pit16Attached` is correctly *not* required/omitted), `soleActivityViaCivilPartnership: false` (so the civil -partnership NIP/REGON pair is correctly omitted), `maritalPropertyCommunity: "tak"`, a business bank account, and `documents.lawfulActivityAttestation: true`. The validation script (`/tmp` scratch file, reproduced in full below for reviewer re-runnability) was run against the committed packet: ``` $ node validate_packet.mjs registry/pl/ceidg/wniosek-o-wpis-do-ceidg/1.0.0/schema.json \ conformance/pl/ceidg/wniosek-o-wpis-do-ceidg/1.0.0/application-packet.json OK: packet validates against pl/ceidg/wniosek-o-wpis-do-ceidg@1.0.0 (81 fields, 2 documents) ``` **Negative controls**, run against the same script to confirm it actually catches violations rather than passing vacuously: ``` $ # pesel shortened to "123" — violates the 11-digit pattern FAIL (1 error(s)): - field pesel: value "123" does not match pattern ^[0-9]{11}$ $ # businessName removed — violates required: true FAIL (1 error(s)): - field businessName: required (or requiredWhen matched) but absent from packet $ # noFixedBusinessLocation flipped to true, businessLocationCity removed OK: packet validates against pl/ceidg/wniosek-o-wpis-do-ceidg@1.0.0 (81 fields, 2 documents) ``` The third control confirms the `requiredWhen` gate behaves correctly in both directions: `businessLocationCity` is required when `noFixedBusinessLocation` is `false` (as in the main fixture) and correctly *not* required when it is `true`. Both meta-schema validators were run against the finished document and pass clean: ``` $ node tools/validate.mjs registry/pl/ceidg/wniosek-o-wpis-do-ceidg/1.0.0/schema.json ok registry/pl/ceidg/wniosek-o-wpis-do-ceidg/1.0.0/schema.json 1/1 document(s) passed. $ node tools/validate-ajv.mjs registry/pl/ceidg/wniosek-o-wpis-do-ceidg/1.0.0/schema.json ok registry/pl/ceidg/wniosek-o-wpis-do-ceidg/1.0.0/schema.json [v0.3] 1/1 document(s) validated against the meta-schema (ajv 2020-12). ```