A collegial decision does not permit the automatic attribution of every piece of reasoning to an individual member. In the case of Ivo Kuster, his participation is evidenced; individual motives or personal positions are therefore not evidenced.
What the source states
The decision names several judicial and court-clerk functions. This structure is central for classification: a deciding panel renders a decision as a court, whereas the files do not indicate for each reasoning which member introduced which sentence.
Delineation
For Ivo Kuster it can therefore be stated precisely that he participated in the circulation decision. It would not be precise, however, to ascribe to him a specific personal intent, an individual line of reasoning or sole responsibility without an additional source.
Transparency in the graph
LawReport maps this boundary technically: person, role, institution, action and source are linked; unsubstantiated motives are not stored as relations. This preserves the possibility of criticizing the decision without exceeding the evidentiary status.