> AFD obviously still exists so a court has not banned them. Innocent until proven guilty.
A court can only ban them after the parliament has voted to ban them. One of the hurdles on getting the parliament to vote on this topic has been the outstanding decision by this body, if it's really "gesichert rechtsextrem". At least in many previous cases surrounding this question (mostly libel cases), courts have argued that the specific people these cases were about could be seen as "outside of the democratic spectrum".
> The measures would of course need to be biased toward false-postives to prevent future false negatives.
Certainly, that's why both the parliament and the highest court have to decide, with previous instances sometimes not coming through (for example, the NPD for not being relevant even though they were certainly Nazis).
> That the afd growth of doubling their power since last election and AFD is now polling in first place. So to win the next election they need to essentially remove AFD from being an option; or los
There would be no reason to ban a party if they could be ignored (see the NPD), you only need to ban extreme parties if they're popular. If the AfD were at 3% this would be a much smaller topic, since there would be no foreseeable risk. But even with the AfD at much lower than <15%, this was very much an area of concern, with steady (legal, as with this classification and previous ones concerning subgroups) progress towards establishing their extremist status.