[#607] Add submit warnings for general information

[Drevanoorschot]

DOD checklist

For PR maintainer

Perform these checks before marking the PR as ready:

• I have linked the PR to at least one issue.
• I assigned the PR to myself.
• I have added a description how to test this PR (see "Review Instructions").
• [For bug fixes only] I have added a regression test for the fixed bug.
• I have added documentation where necessary.

For reviewer

• I have read all code changes.
• I have audited the code quality.
• I have tested the changes either or both:
  • locally
  • on the test environment (preferred)
• I have validated that the PR is functionally correct (use-cases, figma designs, etc.)

Review instructions

insert a description on how to test this PR here

TODO

• [info] geen vervanger herstel verzuim
• [warn] statutaire naam onbreekt
• [error] aanduiding ontbreekt
• [info] aantal zetels niet ingevuld
• [warn] gemachtigde ontbreekt (of gegevens ontbreken)
  • Voorletters
  • achternaam
• [error] lijstinleveraar ontbreekt (of gegevens ontbreken)
  • correspondentie adres
  • voorletters
  • achternaam
• [info] vervanger herstel verzuim missende velden:
  • correspondentie adres
  • voorletters
  • achternaam

[github-actions]

PDF diff summary

Template	Input	Status
model-h1.typ	model-h1-example-1.json	🔵 identical
model-h1.typ	model-h1-example-2.json	🔵 identical
model-h1.typ	model-h1-example-3.json	🔵 identical
model-h3-1.typ	model-h3-1-example-1.json	🔵 identical
model-h3-1.typ	model-h3-1-example-2.json	🔵 identical
model-h3-1.typ	model-h3-1-example-3.json	🔵 identical
model-h4.typ	model-h4-example-1.json	🔵 identical
model-h4.typ	model-h4-example-2.json	🔵 identical
model-h4.typ	model-h4-example-3.json	🔵 identical
model-h9.typ	model-h9-example-1.json	🔵 identical
model-h9.typ	model-h9-example-2.json	🔵 identical
model-h9.typ	model-h9-example-3.json	🔵 identical

[github-actions]

Sigrid maintainability feedback

✅ You wrote maintainable code and achieved your objective of 3.5 stars.

Show details

Sigrid compared your code against the baseline of 2026-05-01.

👍 What went well?

You fixed or improved 0 refactoring candidates.

👎 What could be better?

You did not introduce any technical debt during your changes, great job!

📚 Remaining technical debt

1 refactoring candidates didn't get better or worse, but are still present in the code you touched.

View this system in Sigrid to explore your technical debt

⭐️ Sigrid ratings

System property	System on 2026-05-01	Before changes	New/changed code
Volume	4.2	N/A	N/A
Duplication	4.6	5.5	5.5
Unit Size	3.0	3.9	4.1
Unit Complexity	4.3	5.5	5.5
Unit Interfacing	2.3	5.5	5.5
Module Coupling	3.7	5.5	5.5
Component Independence	2.5	N/A	N/A
Component Entanglement	2.1	N/A	N/A
Maintainability	3.4	5.1	5.2

💬 Did you find this feedback helpful?

We would like to know your thoughts to make Sigrid better.
Your username will remain confidential throughout the process.

• ✅ Yes, these findings are useful
• 🔸 The findings are false positives
• 🔹 These findings are not important to me

---

View this system in Sigrid

[sonarqubecloud]

Quality Gate passed

Issues
0 New issues
0 Accepted issues

Measures
0 Security Hotspots
0.0% Coverage on New Code
0.0% Duplication on New Code

See analysis details on SonarQube Cloud