EXHIBIT A-1

STATE TRANSITION MATRIX – GV25037264-00 (SELECTED EVENTS)

I. High-Level States Used in This Matrix

S2 – Hearing scheduled (normal track): First merits hearing set on an ordinary timeline with reasonable notice.
S3 – Hearing accelerated / rescheduled adverse to tenant: Hearing date moved earlier (e.g., from March 10 to January 26) in a way that shortens preparation time and may impair notice.
S4 – Continuance requested (by tenant): Tenant files a motion for continuance (e.g., for documented medical good cause).
S5 – Continuance denied or not properly recorded: Continuance is denied, or a promised continuance is not reflected in the docket or case-management system.
S6 – Continuance granted / hearing reset (formal or promised): Hearing is reset or promised to a later date and should be entered into the record.
S8 – Tenant mitigation actions (motions, notices, evidence): Tenant engages in protective actions such as motions, notices to sheriff, and preparation of evidence and audit tools.

II. January 23, 2026 – Acceleration and Medical Continuance

Date–time	Before State	After State	Atomic Empirical Statement	Rule / Norm	Violation / Issue
1/23/2026 morning	S2	S3	Court/clerk accelerated the unlawful detainer hearing from March 10 to January 26, drastically shortening the tenant’s effective preparation time.	Hearing scheduling changes should preserve reasonable notice, avoid surprise, and not create a one-sided disadvantage to either party.	The acceleration moved the hearing significantly closer in time and created a one-sided disadvantage to an unrepresented tenant with ongoing medical issues, without a corresponding accommodation.
1/23/2026 ~11–1 p.m.	S3	S4 + S8	The tenant drafted and filed an Emergency Motion for Continuance, Conditional Dismissal, and Verified Discovery, supported by medical and billing exhibits.	A tenant may request a continuance for documented medical good cause, and such requests should be seriously considered and ruled on clearly, especially where prior continuances or schedule accommodations have been granted to the landlord.	Continuance relief was not effectively granted or recorded despite documented medical issues and an existing pattern of scheduling latitude for the landlord, leaving the tenant exposed to the accelerated hearing date.
1/23/2026 ~midday	S3 / S4	S6 (promised)	In the presence of a supervisory clerk, the judge agreed to move the hearing back to March 10 and to stop the sheriff; the tenant received an appointment card showing the March 10 date.	When a continuance is granted or a new hearing date is promised, the docket and case-management system should be updated promptly and accurately, and enforcement activity should align with the new date.	The promised March 10 reset was not entered into the docket; the case remained exposed to the January 26 setting and subsequent enforcement steps, contrary to the representation made in court.
1/23/2026 10:17 a.m. & surrounding times	S3	S3 + S8	The tenant used online research and AI-assisted drafting tools to prepare motions, letters, and notices in response to the accelerated hearing and writ activity.	A tenant’s good-faith preparation and filing efforts should be received and considered; they should not be rendered futile by docketing failures or by enforcement overtaking adjudication.	These mitigation efforts were undermined when later scheduling and enforcement decisions moved forward without consistent recognition of the tenant’s filings and the promised continuance.

III. January 26, 2026 – Docket Mismatch and Second Continuance Effort

Date–time	Before State	After State	Atomic Empirical Statement	Rule / Norm	Violation / Issue
1/26/2026 early a.m.	S6 (promised)	S3 / S5	The docket still showed the unlawful detainer hearing on January 26, not March 10, contradicting the judge’s representation and the appointment card issued to the tenant on January 23.	When the court has promised or granted a continuance to a later date, the docket should accurately reflect that date before the earlier setting, and the tenant should not be left to guess or self-police the discrepancy.	The failure to update the docket left the accelerated January 26 setting in place, effectively nullifying the promised March 10 continuance and forcing an unrepresented, medically vulnerable tenant to re-litigate scheduling.
1/26/2026 ~8:30 a.m.	S3 / S5	S4 + S8	While still dealing with serious medical issues, the tenant appeared at the courthouse, confirmed the docket, and filed another motion at the clerk’s window to enforce or confirm the continuance to March 10.	A tenant who appears in person and files a follow-up motion to reconcile the record with the court’s prior representation should receive prompt corrective action and clear documentation of the new hearing date.	The tenant had to expend additional effort and risk his health to correct a record-keeping failure; only after this second effort was the docket corrected, reflecting a reactive rather than protective approach to his procedural rights.
1/26/2026 later p.m.	S4	S6	The docket was ultimately updated to show the unlawful detainer hearing moved to March 10.	Once a continuance is granted, the docket should be corrected in a timely way, and all subsequent enforcement activity (including any writ execution) should respect the updated hearing schedule.	The correction occurred only after repeated efforts by the tenant and did not prevent earlier issuance and execution of writs that had already overtaken adjudication, illustrating the broader enforcement-before-judgment pattern in GV25037264-00.