ISO Date Compliance Detected as Incident in Demo Instance

🐛 Bug Report

Summary

ISO-compliant date formats (YYYY, YYYY-MM-DD) are incorrectly flagged as Incident in the demo instance, while they are correctly evaluated as Compliance in the local instance.

Steps to Reproduce

1. Run validation in the demo instance with a dataset containing ISO-compliant dates (YYYY, YYYY-MM-DD).
2. Scroll to the respective validation checks in the generated report.
3. Compare with results from the local instance using the same dataset and the same constraints.

What is the current bug behavior?

• Demo instance flags ISO-compliant dates as Incident.
• Local instance evaluates correctly as Compliance.

What is the expected correct behavior?

ISO-compliant dates (YYYY, YYYY-MM-DD) should be evaluated as Compliance consistently across demo and local instances.

Relevant Logs, Screenshots, or Gifs

• Demo instance (first run) - scroll to 11C and 11D: https://aqinda.gwdg.de/report/b562da52-0309-416a-b9b0-4bea7751d0b4/qpm
• Demo instance (second run): https://aqinda.gwdg.de/report/4ac7bf29-6b68-4817-94d0-e4d5d451784f/qpm
• Demo instance (third run): https://aqinda.gwdg.de/report/73eaf41b-f924-46ca-a7c9-2b2674908e91/qpm
• Local instance - same constraints and almost the same data:
• Local instance (second run):
• Local instance Report: constrainify_report_d3fe8a7e-db36-49d3-90ea-80aba2d79357.json

constrainify_report_d3fe8a7e-db36-49d3-90ea-80aba2d79357__1_.csv

Environment Details

• Instance: Demo (affected), Local (not affected)
• Dataset: Kulturerbe Niedersachsen data in DDB

Additional Context

Likely an issue specific to the demo instance configuration or evaluation engine rather than QPM itself. Needs investigation of demo environment.