As in many countries of the Civil Law tradition, consolidated versions of statutes - statutes with added amendments - are difficult to obtain reliably and promptly in Germany. This gap has prompted interest in using large language models (LLMs) to ‘synthesize’ current and historical versions from amendments. Our paper experiments with an LLM-based consolidation framework and a dataset of 908 amendment–law pairs drawn from 140 Federal Law Gazette documents across four major codes. While automated metrics show high textual similarity (93-99%) for single-step and multi-step amendment chains, only 50.3% of exact matches (single-step) and 20.51% (multi-step) could be achieved; our expert assessment reveals that non-trivial errors persist and that even small divergences can carry legal significance. We therefore argue that any public or private deployment must treat outputs as drafts subject to rigorous human verification.