6d29191e9b
User feedback after BMW test:
- 60 'BMW AG — XYZ' rows were rendered as ✗ for Opt-Out/Privacy and
scored 38-52%. That's misleading: BMW processing for itself doesn't
need a separate opt-out URL (cookie-banner is the consent
mechanism) or a separate privacy policy (main DSI covers it).
- Title 'Anbieter' was wrong for 60 of 90 rows (internal services).
Three orthogonal fixes:
1. score_vendors becomes recipient_type aware:
- INTERNAL/GROUP_COMPANY: opt_out_url, privacy_policy_url, country
are NOT required (the user's main DSI + cookie-banner cover them).
What IS required: name, purpose, cookies disclosed with name +
expiry. Cookies-disclosure weight raised to 50 (was 15) so the
VVT-relevant data is the score driver.
- 'necessary' category: opt-out still skipped (§25 Abs. 2 TDDDG).
- External (PROCESSOR/CONTROLLER): existing strict scoring stays.
2. _link_status_badge accepts na_label and renders a neutral em-dash
with explanation tooltip instead of red ✗ when the column doesn't
apply to that row. _render_vendor_row_full passes na_label based on
recipient_type:
- INTERNAL/GROUP -> 'Nicht erforderlich (eigene Verarbeitung)'
- necessary -> 'Nicht erforderlich (§25 Abs. 2 TDDDG)'
3. Header + summary clarify the split:
- h3 changed to 'Verarbeitungstaetigkeiten und Empfaenger aus der
Cookie-Richtlinie' (was 'Drittanbieter aus Cookie-Richtlinie').
- Top line: '90 Verarbeitungen erfasst — 60 eigene + 30 externe
Empfaenger'.
- Disclaimer below: explains the INTERNAL/GROUP exemption so the
reader understands why those rows don't show ✗ for missing URLs.
- Section labels enriched with the relevant DSGVO article:
'Eigene Verarbeitungstaetigkeiten — fuer das VVT (Art. 30)',
'Auftragsverarbeiter — AVV erforderlich (Art. 28)',
'Joint Controller — Vereinbarung pruefen (Art. 26)'.
Expected BMW result after fix: ~85% of the 60 BMW-AG rows jump from
~52% to 90-100% (the real issue, fehlende Cookies-Disclosure, stays
flagged). The only true findings remaining are external links that
return 4xx (e.g. Criteo 403, Teads 404).