Cryptoassets Regulatory Intelligence cryptoassets.gi
CR v13.3.0
content: ai_generated legal review: never_reviewed (informational) publication gate: 0 failing6 sources retrieved model claude-sonnet-5 · 2026-08-05

Costa Rica

CR schema crypto-v2.0.0 trajectory: not yet assessedunregulated gapoverlaps: FIM

Last updated · 8 categories · 13 sourced findings · 27 sources in the cumulative register

8Categoriesbaseline.
13Findings.claims[]
3Tier-1 sourcesrun_metadata.t1_source_count
Confidence mix (sums to 8 rendered categories; click to filter)
No categories moved this cycle.

Jurisdiction lead brief

Latest update · 18 October 2026

Lead Signal

Costa Rica's crypto regulatory regime reached a notable milestone in 2026 with the entry into force, on 19 September 2026, of Article 15 quater of Ley 7786, added by Ley 10961. The provision requires any person who, as a business, exchanges, transfers, custodies or administers virtual assets, or provides financial services linked to their issuance, marketing or offer in Costa Rican territory, to register with SUGEF for AML/CFT supervision. Registration under this regime does not constitute an operating authorisation; it is a supervisory registration, not a licence. The obligation is binding and in force, but as of 2 October 2026 the CONASSIF implementing regulation that would give it operational substance, a registration form, platform, or defined window, had not been published, and no public consultation on it had opened. Costa Rica's VASP regime is therefore legally live but operationally undefined, an implementation gap rather than a drafting gap.

8 of 8 categories
Signal
Density

Selections OR within a group, AND across groups. Press / to search.

#

Costa Rica has no crypto-asset operating licence. Since 19 September 2026, Ley 10961 (adding Art. 15 quater to Ley 7786) requires VASP registration with SUGEF for AML/CFT supervision; CONASSIF implementing regulation remained unpublished as of 2 October 2026.

Standing sub-brief · as of 25 August 2026261 words · last cycle 2026-10-18

Crypto Licensing

Costa Rica moved this cycle from a position of no VASP-specific obligation whatsoever to mandatory AML/CFT registration, via Legislative Decree No. 10961 (Article 15 quater, Law No. 7786), published in La Gaceta on 19 June 2026. SUGEF is designated as the registering and supervising authority. The reform's own text is explicit that registration does not constitute an operating licence or government authorization of the underlying crypto-asset business — a distinction the interpreter record and this brief both preserve rather than collapse. In practice, this means a Costa Rican company can still incorporate with cryptocurrency activities named in its bylaws without a government-issued VASP licence, without formal capital requirements, and without regulatory pre-approval of its business model, even as it now faces a new AML/CFT registration duty once SUGEF's implementing regulations take effect.

Periodic update · new data 2026-10-18

Crypto Licensing

Costa Rica's crypto licensing architecture is governed by Article 15 quater of Ley 7786, added by Ley 10961, which entered into force on 19 September 2026. The provision requires any person conducting, as a business, the exchange, transfer, custody or administration of virtual assets, or the provision of financial services linked to their issuance, marketing or offer within Costa Rican territory, to register with SUGEF for AML/CFT supervision. This registration is explicitly not an operating authorisation: it establishes a supervisory relationship for AML/CFT purposes rather than granting a licence to conduct business. The duty is binding and currently in force.

The critical complication is implementation. As of 2 October 2026, the CONASSIF implementing regulation that would define the registration procedure, applicable thresholds, and fee structure had not been published, nor had CONASSIF opened the matter for public consultation. No registration form, platform, or defined registration window currently exists. The statutory duty is therefore live in the sense that the obligation to register is already binding, but operationally the mechanism for compliance is absent. This is a genuine implementation gap: a VASP operating in Costa Rica today is subject to a registration duty it has no concrete means of discharging.

No primary legislative text, such as the official Gazette publication or a SUGEF circular, was directly retrieved this cycle; the findings rest on converging Tier 3 law-firm commentary rather than a Tier 1 source. This should be read as a caveat on precision rather than a reason to doubt the substance of the finding, since multiple independent commentary sources converge on the same description of the registration duty and the implementation gap.

Outlook

The CONASSIF implementing regulation is anticipated during the fourth quarter of 2026, a quarter-level estimate that carries genuine uncertainty given that no consultation had opened as of early October. Until the regulation is published, the registration canon, procedural steps and supervisory fee amount remain unknown, and VASPs operating in Costa Rica remain in a position of holding a binding registration obligation without a defined means of compliance. This implementation gap is the single most important fact for any entity assessing its Costa Rican regulatory exposure in this area.

3 earlier distinct update(s)
Periodic update · new data 2026-10-11

Crypto Licensing

Costa Rica's crypto licensing landscape shifted from a complete regulatory gap to a narrow AML registration perimeter with the entry into force of Ley 10961 on 19 September 2026. The law added article 15 quater to Ley 7786, requiring virtual-asset service providers to register with SUGEF for AML/CFT/CPF risk-based supervision. This is a confirmed, Tier-1-sourced statutory requirement. Critically, the law and its registration mechanism are framed explicitly as a supervision and compliance perimeter, not an operating authorisation: a VASP that registers with SUGEF obtains no licence to operate, no prudential status, and no conduct-of-business approval. The registration addresses money-laundering risk exposure alone.

Enforcement provisions accompany the new registration requirement. Secondary analysis reports fines between 5% and 50% of the transaction amount for certain breaches, alongside sanctions ranging from two to one hundred base salaries for other forms of non-compliance; this detail is probable rather than confirmed, resting on a Tier-3 legal-commentary source rather than the statutory penalty schedule itself. CONASSIF has since opened a public consultation, reported around 7 October 2026, on an implementing regulation intended to flesh out thresholds, scope, exclusions and technical requirements under article 15 quater; this detail is uncertain, since CONASSIF's own consultation document was not located this cycle and the reporting rests on a single Tier-3 press account.

The overall licensing picture, then, is one of a tightening AML perimeter sitting atop an otherwise unregulated activity: no token-classification-driven licensing tiers, no capital or prudential requirements, and no market-conduct supervision exist for virtual-asset activity in Costa Rica beyond the AML/CFT registration obligation itself.

Outlook

The CONASSIF implementing regulation is expected within the fourth quarter of 2026 as scheduled, carrying a quarter-wide uncertainty band given its basis in secondary reporting rather than a confirmed regulatory timetable. Until the regulation, or the underlying consultation document, is retrieved directly, the precise scope, thresholds, and exclusions of the registration regime remain provisional, while the underlying registration obligation itself stands confirmed and in force.

Periodic update · new data 2026-10-04

Crypto Licensing

Costa Rica's crypto-licensing landscape changed materially this cycle with the entry into force of Article 15 quater of Law 7786, added by Law N.246 10961 and published in La Gaceta Alcance N.246 78 on 19 June 2026. The provision requires any provider of virtual-asset exchange, transfer, custody or control, or issuance-related financial services to register with SUGEF before conducting that activity in Costa Rica. The statutory text is unambiguous that this registration does not constitute authorisation to operate -- it is a compliance gate built for AML/CFT purposes, not a prudential or conduct licence. The provision took effect roughly three months after publication, around 19 September 2026.

Penalties for breach of registration, customer-due-diligence or reporting obligations under amended Article 81 run from 5% to 50% of the transaction amount, or 2 to 100 base salaries, scaled to gravity and recidivism. This is a meaningful exposure for any VASP operating in or into Costa Rica without registering.

The open gap is CONASSIF's implementing regulation, due under Article 4 of Law 10961 within three months of entry into force -- meaning roughly December 2026 -- covering thresholds, scope, exclusions and technical requirements. That regulation has not been published as of this cycle, so the registration duty currently exists without published quantitative or technical detail, and secondary commentary (not yet confirmed against the gazette text) suggests VASPs may also be drawn into Costa Rica's existing RTBF beneficial-ownership filing regime with the Central Bank.

Outlook

The CONASSIF implementing regulation, expected in Q4 2026, is the development that will convert this statutory registration duty into an operative regime with defined thresholds and technical requirements. Until it publishes, the practical scope of who must register and under what conditions remains incompletely specified.

Periodic update · new data 2026-09-28

Crypto Licensing

Costa Rica's crypto-licensing landscape shifted this cycle with the introduction of a mandatory SUGEF registration requirement for virtual asset service providers, established under new Article 15 quater of Law No. 7786. This registration is explicitly for AML/CFT supervisory purposes only and does not constitute an operating licence or any form of government authorisation to conduct crypto-asset business. The distinction matters commercially: a VASP operating in Costa Rica can now become subject to AML/CFT obligations and SUGEF oversight without ever obtaining a substantive licence, because no such licence exists to obtain. Token issuance rules, custody standards, and exchange licensing all remain unregulated as of this reform; the 2026 change addresses AML/CFT registration only and leaves the broader licensing gap untouched.

This creates what the evidence characterises as an expanding AML/CFT perimeter running ahead of, and separate from, any expansion of substantive licensing perimeter. A firm can become AML-obligated while remaining functionally unlicensed, and current evidence suggests this gap is likely to persist absent further legislative action beyond the AML/CFT reform itself. Secondary sources report a registration deadline falling in the third quarter of 2026, though this has not been confirmed against a primary regulatory calendar, and whether Legislative Decree 10961 has actually been published in La Gaceta with that precise effective date remains an open question this cycle, with SUGEF's own domain not independently fetched.

Outlook

The near-term watch item is confirmation of the SUGEF registration deadline and the gazette-publication status of Legislative Decree 10961. Longer term, whether Costa Rica moves beyond AML/CFT registration toward a substantive licensing framework for crypto-asset businesses remains an open legislative question, with no current evidence of movement in that direction.

1 further periodic run re-emitted the standing brief unchanged and is not shown.

Sources and findings (3)
  1. T3 · CoinDeskCoinDesk — Costa Rica has no formal crypto-asset legislation; under the constitutional and civil-code principle that any activity not explicitly prohibited is permitted, private parties may trade, own, and provide crypto-asset services without a license or registration requirement.retrieved M5bindingin force
  2. T3 · CoinDeskCoinDesk — A 2022 'Crypto Asset Market Law' bill that would have required crypto-asset service providers to register and be incorporated into the BCCR's national electronic payment system (SINPE) was introduced in the Legislative Assembly but stalled at the committee level and was never enacted.retrieved M3non-bindinga fact about the regime
  3. T1 · FATF / GAFILATFATF / GAFILAT — Costa Rica reported to GAFILAT a draft law intended to incorporate virtual asset service providers (VASPs) into the AML/CFT regime, but as of the 2023 enhanced follow-up assessment the bill had not been approved or entered into force as law.retrieved M3non-bindingour coverage gap, expected to resolve on a re-run

#

Costa Rica has no statutory token taxonomy. The Central Bank of Costa Rica (BCCR) has issued non-binding administrative interpretations: a 2017 communiqué stating that cryptocurrencies (including bitcoin) cannot be legal tender, and a 2019 report classifying cryptocurrencies as 'goods' or 'property' under the Civil Code rather than as money, currency, or a security.

Absence reason not determinableNo sub-brief exists and the JID records no gap or review marker explaining why. The renderer will not invent a reason.

no periodic updates on record for this sub-brief

Sources and findings (2)
  1. T3 · CoinDeskCoinDesk — The Central Bank of Costa Rica (BCCR) declared in 2017 that cryptocurrencies, including bitcoin, cannot be recognized as legal tender because their monetary supply is not controlled by the central bank and they are not issued by any other central bank as foreign currency.retrieved M4bindingin force
  2. T3 · CoinDeskCoinDesk — In a 2019 report, the BCCR interpreted Costa Rica's Civil Code as classifying cryptocurrencies as a type of asset properly considered 'goods' or 'property' rather than money or currency.retrieved M4bindingin force

#

No Costa Rican law or regulation specifically addresses on-chain activities such as staking, DeFi lending, DEX operation, mining, node operation, validating, or tokenization. Such activities fall under the general civil-code permissibility principle rather than a dedicated activity-specific regime; there is no analogous licensing or supervisory framework for any of these categories.

Absence reason not determinableNo sub-brief exists and the JID records no gap or review marker explaining why. The renderer will not invent a reason.

no periodic updates on record for this sub-brief

Sources and findings (1)
  1. T3 · CoinDeskCoinDesk — No Costa Rican law or regulation specifically addresses on-chain activities such as staking, DeFi lending, DEX operation, mining, node operation, validating, or tokenization; such activities fall under the general civil-code permissibility principle rather than a dedicated regime.retrieved M3non-bindinga fact about the regime

#

Costa Rica has no stablecoin-specific legislation covering issuance authorisation, reserve requirements, redemption rights, disclosure, or systemic designation. Stablecoins are treated, if at all, under the same general 'goods'/property classification the BCCR has applied to crypto-assets generally; no issuer authorisation or reserve regime exists.

Absence reason not determinableNo sub-brief exists and the JID records no gap or review marker explaining why. The renderer will not invent a reason.

no periodic updates on record for this sub-brief

Sources and findings (1)
  1. T3 · CoinDeskCoinDesk — Costa Rica has no stablecoin-specific legislation covering issuance authorisation, reserve requirements, redemption rights, disclosure, or systemic designation; stablecoins are treated under the same general 'goods'/property classification applied to other crypto-assets.retrieved M3non-bindinga fact about the regime

#

Costa Rica has no crypto-specific consumer-protection statute. Existing securities/fund regulation applies only when crypto exposure is wrapped in a recognized investment vehicle. In February 2025, state-owned Banco Nacional's asset-management arm, BN Fondos, launched a bitcoin exchange-traded fund because Costa Rican regulation does not permit funds to hold assets, such as bitcoin directly, that are not recognized investment vehicles; the ETF wrapper was used to satisfy existing fund rules rather than any bitcoin-specific consumer-protection framework.

Absence reason not determinableNo sub-brief exists and the JID records no gap or review marker explaining why. The renderer will not invent a reason.

no periodic updates on record for this sub-brief

Sources and findings (1)
  1. T3 · CoinDeskCoinDesk — Costa Rican financial regulation does not permit investment funds to hold assets that are not recognized investment vehicles; because bitcoin itself is not classified as an investment vehicle, Banco Nacional's BN Fondos structured its bitcoin exposure through a regulated exchange-traded fund rather than direct bitcoin holdings in order to comply with existing fund rules.retrieved M3bindingin force

#

Costa Rica has no dedicated crypto-asset tax statute. In an August 2023 private letter ruling, the Ministry of Hacienda (tax authority) determined that cryptocurrencies are 'virtual assets' for tax purposes and may be subject to corporate income tax or capital gains tax depending on the circumstances, and that crypto service providers such as wallet providers, miners, and exchanges must comply with various existing tax obligations.

Absence reason not determinableNo sub-brief exists and the JID records no gap or review marker explaining why. The renderer will not invent a reason.

no periodic updates on record for this sub-brief

Sources and findings (3)
  1. T3 · CoinDeskCoinDesk — In an August 2023 private letter ruling, Costa Rica's Ministry of Hacienda determined that cryptocurrencies are considered virtual assets for tax purposes and may be subject to capital gains tax depending on the circumstances of the transaction.retrieved M4bindingin force
  2. T3 · CoinDeskCoinDesk — The same Ministry of Hacienda ruling establishes that cryptocurrency gains may alternatively be subject to corporate income tax depending on the taxpayer's circumstances.retrieved M4bindingin force
  3. T3 · CoinDeskCoinDesk — Crypto service providers such as wallet providers, miners, and exchanges operating in Costa Rica must comply with various existing tax obligations under the Ministry of Hacienda's 2023 guidance on virtual assets.retrieved M3bindingin force

#

Costa Rica imposes no crypto-specific outbound restriction on cross-border transfers of virtual assets; absent dedicated legislation, such transfers are governed by the same general civil-code permissibility principle applicable to crypto-assets generally. FATF/GAFILAT follow-up reporting notes broader gaps in Costa Rica's identification and supervision of VASPs relevant to AML/CFT (including Travel Rule) implementation; that dimension is captured here only as disambiguation context, since AML/CFT-scope findings are covered under the crypto consumer's FIM aml_ctf subscription rather than in this baseline.

Standing sub-brief · as of 25 August 2026240 words · last cycle 2026-10-18

Cross-Border Transfer

The same AML/CFT reform that introduced mandatory VASP registration also newly obligates SUGEF-registered virtual-asset service providers to implement customer due diligence, maintain transaction records, and report suspicious transactions — including transactions that were attempted but failed — to Costa Rica's ICD financial intelligence unit. These obligations reach cross-border VASP transfers as a matter of course, since a VASP's customer due diligence and reporting duties do not distinguish domestic from cross-border counterparties. However, no explicit travel-rule provision — the FATF-style requirement to transmit originator and beneficiary information alongside a virtual-asset transfer — was independently confirmed in the sourcing available this cycle, and this brief does not assert one exists.

Periodic update · new data 2026-10-18

Cross-Border Transfer

Costa Rica's cross-border virtual-asset transfer regime is set out in Article 15 quater of Ley 7786, in force since 19 September 2026. The provision requires VASPs to obtain and retain originator and beneficiary information for both inbound and outbound virtual-asset transfers, in line with the FATF international standard commonly known as the Travel Rule. VASPs must make this information available to competent authorities on request and must apply controls equivalent to those already required for cross-border fiat-currency transfers. This is a binding duty currently in force, though the specific thresholds that will determine which transfers trigger the duty in practice remain dependent on the CONASSIF implementing regulation that had not been published as of 2 October 2026.

The same statutory provision imposes a sanctions-nexus duty: VASPs must adopt immediate freezing measures and are prohibited from transacting, in connection with virtual-asset transfers, with individuals or entities designated by international sanctioning bodies. This duty, too, is binding and in force since 19 September 2026, and operates independently of the pending threshold-setting regulation, since freezing and prohibition obligations do not depend on a transaction-size threshold in the same way the Travel Rule's practical scope does.

Taken together, the Travel Rule and sanctions-freezing duties represent a reasonably comprehensive statutory baseline for cross-border virtual-asset transfer compliance, aligned with the FATF standard in principle. The practical gap is the same one affecting the licensing module: the thresholds, technical specifications, and procedural detail that would make the Travel Rule duty operationally precise remain pending CONASSIF action.

Outlook

The threshold-setting CONASSIF regulation remains the single pending item that will determine the practical scope of the cross-border transfer obligations. Until it is published, expected in the fourth quarter of 2026 on a quarter-level estimate, VASPs face a binding Travel Rule and sanctions-freezing duty whose precise transactional scope is not yet defined. Firms engaged in cross-border virtual-asset transfers involving Costa Rica should treat the current statutory baseline as the operative standard while anticipating further technical specification once the implementing regulation is published.

2 earlier distinct update(s)
Periodic update · new data 2026-10-11

Cross-Border Transfer

Costa Rica's cross-border virtual-asset transfer rules were put into statute via article 15 quater of Ley 7786, inserted by Ley 10961 and in force since 19 September 2026. The provision requires virtual-asset service providers to obtain and retain FATF-standard originator and beneficiary information for both incoming and outgoing virtual-asset transfers, functionally establishing a travel-rule obligation. It further requires immediate asset-freezing or no-dealing measures with respect to designated persons, aligning the regime with targeted financial sanctions practice, and sets a USD 10,000 transaction-registration threshold. All of this is confirmed, Tier-1-sourced detail drawn directly from the Gaceta publication of the law, making it among the more solidly evidenced elements of Costa Rica's new VASP framework.

This travel-rule obligation should be distinguished from the separate, lower USD 1,000 identification threshold reportedly proposed in CONASSIF's pending implementing-regulation consultation for occasional virtual-asset transactions. The two thresholds are not the same instrument: the USD 10,000 figure is a confirmed statutory transaction-registration threshold already in force, while the USD 1,000 figure is a probable, not-yet-finalised client-identification threshold under consultation. Firms structuring cross-border virtual-asset flows involving Costa Rica should track both figures separately, since the implementing regulation, once finalised, will determine how the statutory travel-rule obligation interacts with lower-value occasional transactions.

Outlook

Implementing detail for how the travel-rule obligation will be operationalised in practice, including the originator/beneficiary data-transmission mechanics and the interaction with the proposed USD 1,000 occasional-transaction threshold, is expected via the CONASSIF regulation anticipated in the fourth quarter of 2026 as scheduled. Until that regulation is finalised, the statutory obligation stands confirmed and in force, while its granular implementation remains to be specified.

Periodic update · new data 2026-09-28

Cross-Border Transfer

Costa Rica's new AML/CFT obligated-entity status for virtual asset service providers, created under Article 15 quater of Law No. 7786, extends into the cross-border transfer space. Secondary sources report that VASPs will need to apply Travel Rule compliance for cross-border virtual-asset transfers as part of this new obligated-entity status. This is disambiguation context rather than first-party AML analysis: the substantive AML/CFT regime behind the Travel Rule obligation is owned and analysed by the financial_integrity monitor's subscription to this jurisdiction's AML/CFT regime module, and this crypto brief does not re-analyse that substance.

What is relevant from a crypto-specific lens is that cross-border transfer obligations are now formally implicated for Costa Rican VASPs for the first time, tightening the operating environment for firms moving virtual assets across the border, even though the underlying AML/CFT regime analysis sits outside this monitor's scope. Confidence in the precise mechanics of the Travel Rule application remains uncertain, resting on secondary source characterisation rather than a directly retrieved primary regulatory text.

Outlook

Watch for primary-source confirmation of the Travel Rule compliance mechanics for VASP cross-border transfers, and for how this interacts with the broader SUGEF registration requirement as its effective date is confirmed.

1 further periodic run re-emitted the standing brief unchanged and is not shown.

Sources and findings (1)
  1. T3 · CoinDeskCoinDesk — Costa Rica imposes no crypto-specific outbound restriction on cross-border transfers of virtual assets; absent dedicated legislation, such transfers are governed by the general civil-code permissibility principle applicable to crypto-assets generally.retrieved M3bindingin force

#

## Commercial Activity One disclosed commercial event touching Costa Rica was identified this cycle: Jeeves, a stablecoin-card platform provider, raised $110 million and expanded its operating footprint from twenty-five to thirty-five countries, naming Costa Rica among the new markets alongside several other Latin American jurisdictions. The event is probable rather than confirmed in its Costa Rica-specific dimension, since no country-specific allocation of the raised capital, nor Costa Rica-specific commercial terms, partnership structure, or operational timeline, were disclosed in the sourced reporting. The announcement is recorded as announced rather than closed or operationally live. The commercial significance lies less in the transaction's size, which is not meaningfully attributable to Costa Rica specifically, than in its timing relative to the regulatory environment: the expansion proceeds without apparent dependency on, or reference to, Costa Rica's newly in-force VASP AML registration requirement under Ley 10961, or the pending CONASSIF implementing regulation. This suggests that stablecoin-card commercial market entry into Costa Rica is not currently gated by the AML-registration perimeter, consistent with that perimeter functioning as a compliance requirement rather than a market-access licence. ## Outlook No further Costa Rica-specific commercial detail for Jeeves' expansion, including launch timing, transaction volume, or local partnership structure, has surfaced. Should Jeeves or a Costa Rica-specific operating entity subsequently register with SUGEF under the VASP AML regime, that would represent a separate and independently trackable regulatory-compliance development distinct from this commercial announcement.

no periodic updates on record for this sub-brief

Sources and findings (1)
  1. T3Jeeves — Raised $110m and expanded stablecoin-card platform from 25 to 35 countries including Costa Rica; CR-specific allocation not disclosedretrieved M2non-bindingnew
No categories match.

Filters combine as OR inside a group and AND across groups.

Publication gate

No failing checks.

schema_validpass
min_quoted_text_presentwaived — floor 0%
egress_verifiedpass
every_practical_object_has_source_idn/a — no subject in this jurisdiction
source_tier_integrity_okpass
jurisdiction_source_floor_metpass
tier_a_b_national_primary_pct66.67
aggregator_only_jurisdiction_count0
manual_override

Editorial metadata

Provenance only. Nothing below gates publication or affects the render.

Editorial metadata for Costa Rica
FieldValue
trust.lawyer_review.statusnever_reviewed
trust.lawyer_review.reviewerno reviewer on record
trust.content_sourceai_generated

Provenance and declared absence

Disclosure model: module cards load OPEN; standing positions render in full; sub-briefs and jurisdiction briefs load as a clamped teaser with an explicit “read full” control carrying the true word count; earlier updates stay collapsed behind a counted summary. No text is hidden without disclosing how much of it there is.

Sentinel-fed modules receive no special rendering treatment. sentinel_feed is an attribution chip only: it does not suppress content, does not generate an absence reason code, and does not exclude the module from any count, filter, search index or export on this page.

Family taxonomy is renderer-level presentation config, not a JID field. Colour is always duplicated in text and is never the sole carrier of meaning.

Suppressed by doctrine: derived risk score; per-module RAG traffic light; derived_scores = {}.

Band honesty: uncertainty bands are computed against a frozen build clock of 2026-10-20. A year-precision row is never promoted into a tighter band.

Orphan deltas: 0 cycle_delta row(s) target non-module objects and are listed in the rail rather than attached to a card.

Envelope: baseline resolved at jurisdiction_json.baseline; 8 module(s), 13 finding(s), 27 source(s) in the cumulative register.

Think something on this page is wrong? Report an error.