Precedent: pitfalls

Wrong forms, silent outcomes, LDC-E diagnostics, typical mistakes of formalizers and AI agents, how to detect them. The item marked “confirmed by run” was reproduced during this research on the installed law (semantics law.core/0.2); the rest follows the precedent profile and the teaching package.

OverviewBoundariesCorpus formsPitfalls

1. General rule with strict instead of defeasible strength (confirmed by run)

A generated holding outranks no strict rule with any priority: the generated priority_rule acts inside the defeasible stratum. Symptom — FALSE_ONLY where TRUE_ONLY was expected, with a clean check OK. Reproduction: in the research.precedent.forced_holding package temporarily swap defeasible on AdIsNotAnOffer for strict — test 01-bound fails with truth_status == TRUE_ONLY: in the document FALSE_ONLY. Detection: the holding’s opponent is always defeasible (the specimen is the teaching package’s general rule).

2. Factor outside the vocabulary — LDC-E2701 (confirmed by run)

A precedent factor undeclared in the vocabulary as a side is a static refusal. Reproduction during this research (a trial package outside the corpus, factor name surprise):

Output

error LDC-E2701: precedent Pbad: фактор `surprise` не объявлен в словаре как plaintiff (§276.3)

Same group: a factor outside the signature and an outcome not over signature variables (LDC-E2703). Detection: check every identifier in the precedent’s plaintiff/defendant/outcome against the vocabulary before running.

3. Factor on both sides — LDC-E2702

A factor’s side is a vocabulary property; one factor in both lists is a refusal. AI agents often duplicate a “key” factor into both sides “for reliability” — that is a refusal, not reinforcement. Detection: the side lists must not overlap.

4. ratio outside X_s — LDC-E2704

ratio must be a subset of the winning side’s set; a ground the court never found must not go into ratio. Same group: overruled earlier than decided, a reference to an unknown decision. Detection: check ratio ⊆ X_s as a set inclusion by hand.

5. Domain not binding all signature variables

Without a domain, a holding with an empty winning-side set would consist of not_known alone and would not bind the head. Symptom — the holding stays silent where facts seem present: the domain reads first, and its non-firing quenches the whole body. Detection: in domain every signature variable must occur.

6. Expecting binding from a persuasive precedent

Courts unlinked by a courts chain are incomparable: the holding binds the case (a fortiori), but a conflict with another-outcome holding resolves not by priority but by honest conflict. The mistake is reading BINDING as “beats any rival”: only a higher or equal later court dominates. In the teaching package the three jurisdictions are incomparable on purpose.

7. Searching for argue and court as declarations

There is no argue keyword in the grammar, and no standalone court either (verified against the grammar during the research). A court HIGH; outside precedent is a syntax error; a “side argument” is written as a plain rule, not a profile construct. Detection: court only inside precedent Name of Vocabulary { … }.

8. Profile without prefer over against a statute — silent BOTH

Without prefer over the holding and the general rule are equal: the profile says FORCED_*, while baseline gives an honest conflict. Not a lowering defect but design: which general rule beats the holding is known by the author. The mistake is reading profile-vs-baseline divergence as breakage; the only true lowering-defect marker is agreesWithRules = false.

9. Open judgment question read as distinguishing

A side-s̄ judgment factor without a court answer gives JUDGMENT_PENDING, not DISTINGUISHED: the baseline holding then FIRES (not_known satisfied by silence), and that is not a mismatch. Anyone quenching the holding “by hand” on a judgment factor breaks agreesWithRules. In the teaching package this is mere_puff.

10. Base consistency read as a refusal

LDC-W2705 is a warning, not an error: courts contradict each other as a matter of fact, and the law must show it. Trying to “repair” the base by deleting a precedent destroys data instead of the diagnostic.