Mortgage protection via RLV?

Why the non-decreasing sum insured? The mortgage is after all always getting smaller...

If the remaining provision for the family is ensured by another means (funeral, living expenses, education ...), there is basically nothing against a decreasing sum insured.

Over the term, a small saving naturally adds up. On the other hand: the constant sum insured includes a, let's call it, "buffer" and enables the survivors, in case of doubt, to live a more worry-free life. If one can even speak of worry-free in that case...

So the RLV should not be dependent on mortgage protection at all, but generally have one. I understand. Other protective measures are not yet in place...

Well, whether one should generally have one is certainly debatable. From my point of view, it depends on the personal living conditions. If both partners in a relationship earn roughly the same amount, there are no children present/planned, the respective other partner can manage with their income; if one also has no one else to care for and has made other arrangements for matters like funerals: No, then I would forgo an RLV, even without a mortgage loan.

I think you should fundamentally consider the topic of "mutual protection" and also take into account the "house building" project and possibly planned children.