Broken matching in multiple scenario files

[Lorenzschaef]

In theory, all the latest releases of the xrechnung validator-configuration (https://github.com/itplr-kosit/validator-configuration-xrechnung) have a scenario for validating EN16931 (CII) without the XRechnung rules. The match-tag of the scenario is as follows:

    <match>exists(/rsm:CrossIndustryInvoice[ rsm:ExchangedDocumentContext/ram:GuidelineSpecifiedDocumentContextParameter/ram:ID/text() = 'urn:cen.eu:en16931:2017'])</match>

If I use any of these scenario files alone, I can validate my file, which starts like this:

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rsm:CrossIndustryInvoice xmlns:rsm="urn:un:unece:uncefact:data:standard:CrossIndustryInvoice:100" xmlns:qdt="urn:un:unece:uncefact:data:standard:QualifiedDataType:100" xmlns:ram="urn:un:unece:uncefact:data:standard:ReusableAggregateBusinessInformationEntity:100" xmlns:xs="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema" xmlns:udt="urn:un:unece:uncefact:data:standard:UnqualifiedDataType:100">
  <rsm:ExchangedDocumentContext>
    <ram:GuidelineSpecifiedDocumentContextParameter>
      <ram:ID>urn:cen.eu:en16931:2017</ram:ID>
...

However, if I load more than one scenario file, which all contain this same scenario, the validator says there is no matching scenario.

On the other hand, I am perfectly able to validate different versions of XRechnung through the same validator instance. So the problem seems to be, that more than one scenario matches!?

I would expect the validator to execute the first matching scenario.

[wurst-hans]

I'm using multiple scenarios too and have commented out the common EN16931 rules (except the specific ones for XRechnung) in all other scenario files except the current 3.0.2. So EN16931 gets validated via latest 3.0.2 configuration only.