Its title. Which ministry is sponsoring it. What kind of instrument it is. And, when it transposes one, which EU directive it is transposing. That is enough to be useful, and it is nowhere near enough — which is why the rest of this page is honest about where the line is.
Bodane reads Luxembourg’s legislative register directly and keeps its own copy: every draft bill and draft grand-ducal regulation, every event recorded against them, and the manifest of documents filed with them.
Counted from the ingested database in September 2026. The corpus grows; these are readings, not marketing figures.
Not a saved search. A topic is a small standing description of an area you are responsible for, and you can have as many as your practice has areas — there is no per-topic charge, because charging per topic would teach you to watch less.
A topic definition never leaves your deployment. It is not sent anywhere for analysis, it is not pooled with other firms’ topics, and it is not used to improve anything outside your own account.
The terms of art you would search for if you had the time — bénéficiaires effectifs, financement du terrorisme, dépositaire — in the language the register publishes in.
Finance, Justice, and whoever else legislates into your world.
Named by their European identifier, so a Luxembourg bill transposing one is recognised as such without depending on the wording of its title.
A grand-ducal regulation and a private member’s bill do not carry the same risk, and a topic can say so.
The failure mode of every alerting product is the same: it cries wolf until you stop reading it. Bodane’s answer is not a cleverer score but a visible split — two signals in one list, one signal in another, and a coarse filter kept behind a fold where it cannot dilute either.
Two independent signals agreed. Either the bill transposes a directive the topic names — which is a fact about the bill, not a guess about its wording — or a keyword from the topic appears in the title and the sponsoring ministry is one the topic watches.
This is a short list on purpose. On a test topic covering anti-money-laundering, four bills matched over twelve months.
One signal only: the keyword is in the title, but no ministry you watch is behind it. These are ordered by how rare the keyword is across all 7,750 titles, so a term that appears in thirty bills outranks one that appears in three thousand.
Each row takes a verdict — relevant, or not. The verdicts are kept, and they become the labelled set against which the next tier of matching is measured. It is the one part of the product that asks something of you, and it is the part that makes it yours.
Everything from a ministry you watch with no keyword agreement at all — 1,275 bills on the test topic above, against four matches. Collapsed, and labelled in the product itself as a filter rather than evidence. It is there for a deliberate trawl, never for an alert.
The exposé des motifs says why a bill exists. The fiche d’évaluation d’impact says who carries the cost. The commentaire des articles says, article by article, what the law becomes. Matching a topic against what a bill does, rather than what it is called, is the whole reason Bodane exists — and it is the part that is not finished.
Nothing described as working above depends on it, and nothing in the product presents an enrichment as a match.
A keyword filter over titles is the first thing anyone tries. It fails for reasons that are specific and measurable, not vague.
46% of titles are pure amendment — they name the law being changed and nothing else. The subject is whatever that older law was about, which the title does not say.
Draft legislation carries no subject codes. Not one of the 7,750 has one. There is no category to subscribe to.
Thirty-two bills in the whole corpus have blanchiment in the title. Anti-money-laundering obligations move far more often than thirty-two times.
The median is 196 characters. The tail is worse.
Titles on this page reproduced from Légilux, Service central de législation, Ministère d’État — licensed CC BY 4.0.
Bodane tells you a bill is moving and why it thinks it concerns you. Whether it does, and what you should do about it, is your judgement and your professional responsibility.
Matching on titles and ministries misses bills. That is the stated reason for the review queue and for the document work in build. Any product in this space that claims to catch everything is describing an ambition.
Nothing is auto-dismissed on your behalf. The unconfident list is shown to you as unconfident rather than filtered away, which is more work and the only defensible design.
Luxembourg legislation, in the register’s own language. EU directives appear where a Luxembourg bill transposes one. It is not a European legislative tracker and does not pretend to be.
Bodane needs a Luxembourg compliance practitioner to define real topics, review what comes back, and say where it is wrong. That is a genuine dependency, not a sales device.