Guardianship — Testamentary

One template + normalizer-composed pathway blocks serves all four existing_will_status intake values: has_kentucky_will -> codicil instrument; no_will -> clause pack with the honest not-the-right-starting-point framing (the engagement letter already says the Will document or the standalone guardianship document is typically the better path - the clause pack still delivers the Article + integration guidance); will_in_progress -> clause pack with sibling-Will-document coordination framing (attorney integrates the Article into the new will; executed once, inside that will); has_other_state_will -> clause pack + ATTORNEY REVIEW REQUIRED framing. Confirm the pathway shaping, especially that no_will RENDERS a clause pack rather than holding the matter for consult-first.

The codicil pathway reuses ky-will.v1.json's EXECUTION AND ATTESTATION block and SELF-PROVING AFFIDAVIT block character-for-character (byte-identical, per the build directive; equality is test-asserted). Consequence (BOTH reused blocks, same ratification - critic NIT-4 2026-06-09): (a) the attestation declares 'this instrument to be my Last Will and Testament' rather than 'the First Codicil to my Last Will and Testament,' and (b) the reused affidavit block carries the same will-phrasing - it declares the Testator 'signed and executed the foregoing instrument as the Testator's Last Will and Testament' and has the witnesses declare they 'signed this Will as witness.' The codicil's republication clause (ratify, confirm, and republish my Will; the Will as amended by this Codicil constitutes my Last Will and Testament) supplies the harmonizing reading for both spans, and a codicil is executed with the same KRS 394.040 formalities as a will - but standard drafting practice often adapts both blocks to name the codicil. Ratify the verbatim reuse of BOTH blocks or direct a codicil-specific adaptation of both.

The intake config collects NO existing-will date and does not ask about prior codicils. The codicil recital therefore (a) renders a fill-in blank for the date of the existing will when the forward-compatible existing_will_date intake key is absent (the checker surfaces a warning-severity attorney flag), and (b) styles the instrument 'First Codicil' unconditionally. Confirm whether to add intake fields (existing will date; prior codicils) or to complete these at attorney review per matter.

guardian_of_estate_same CHECKED -> the Article nominates the same person (and the alternate, if serving) to manage the minor's financial resources, as the second sentence of KRS 387.040 permits, framed with the KRS 387.065 powers + KRS 387.125 asset-duty cites (the repealed section 387.060 is never cited). UNCHECKED -> the Article expressly makes NO separate financial-resources nomination and states that any needed financial-resources appointment is made by the District Court (KRS 387.025 + KRS 387.032), with attorney follow-up flagged - the intake collects no second nominee name, so rendering a different-person nomination is impossible without a new intake field. Confirm both branches.

Pathway C (has_other_state_will) RENDERS the clause pack with a prominent ATTORNEY REVIEW REQUIRED BEFORE EXECUTION banner instead of holding the matter consult-first. Defensible because the clause pack is inert by design (no execution ceremony; express no-effect statement), but the alternative - no document until the attorney reviews the out-of-state instrument - is also reasonable. Confirm.

special_needs_child and existing_will_executor_changed intake checkboxes do NOT change the rendered Article text; they surface as warning-severity checker flags for attorney follow-up (Special Needs Trust discussion; codicil-may-not-be-enough / fresh-Will-document discussion), mirroring the Will checker's unborn-disclaimer opt-out flag pattern. Confirm the no-document-text treatment.

CRITIC FIX 2026-06-09 (F1): the co_parent_living contingency previously claimed the nomination takes effect 'including if the other parent has predeceased me or is then unable to exercise care, custody, and control' - an ability-based condition with NO statutory anchor (zero hits across the source library) that also contradicted the preference sentence that followed. RECAST to the statutory frame: the nomination takes effect as a KRS 387.040 nomination if at my death I am the last surviving parent (the other parent having predeceased me, or the other parent's parental rights having been terminated or suspended by prior court order within the meaning of KRS 387.010(7)); if a parent with intact parental rights survives, the Article expresses the testator-parent's preference for the court's consideration under KRS 387.025 and KRS 387.032. OPEN CASE-LAW QUESTION deliberately NOT claimed: whether any construction of 'last surviving parent' reaches an alive-but-incapacitated co-parent whose parental rights remain intact - unsupported by the source library, so the document does not assert it. Ratify the recast.

CRITIC FIX 2026-06-09 (F3): added one always-rendered sentence at the end of the Guardianship of the Estate section requesting that no surety be required on the bond of any guardian or conservator appointed upon a nomination made in this Article, per KRS 387.070(3)(a) (when the appointed person or entity was nominated pursuant to KRS 387.040 and the will requests no surety, none is required unless the District Court deems it imprudent because of a change of circumstances since the will was made or for other good cause). Standard drafting; it costs the customer nothing, and omitting the request would leave every nominated guardian buying a surety bond absent a court dispensation. RATIFY OR STRIKE at the walk-through.

CRITIC FIX 2026-06-09 (F2): the include_self_proving intake field had NO defaultValue, so IntakeShell rendered the '(recommended)' checkbox UNCHECKED while an untouched submit sent undefined - which the normalizer maps to INCLUDE. The UI now sets defaultValue: true (matching the step-4 intro 'We include a self-proving affidavit ... by default'), and the normalizer's undefined->include mapping remains as a deliberate belt-and-suspenders fallback. NOTE FOR ELTON - the IDENTICAL latent pattern exists in the LIVE Will SKU (apps/cornerstone-next/app/lib/intake-configs/will.js include_self_proving field ~474: no defaultValue; apps/btl-doc-gen-service/lib/intake-normalizers/will.mjs ~163-165: undefined->true): flag only, the Will SKU was deliberately NOT changed in this fix pass. Decide whether to apply the same defaultValue there.