Claim, entitlement, and correlative views

Updated 3 October 2026: concept, except_when, claim, definition … sufficient, and default strength have been removed, together with their special deprecation diagnostic. References below to the former behavior and corpus sources are historical. New source uses relation, unless, duty, a strict rule, and defeasible.

In one sentence: the claim constructs answer “to whom and from whom it is due” without creating new entities: a claim is a duty read from the creditor’s side, and an entitlement is a word of the act’s vocabulary that the author must lower to a duty, a power, or a fact. The author takes them when the text says “has the right to demand”, “is entitled to receive”, “is exempt from”: the parties are already named; the question is which executable form to choose.

OverviewBoundariesCorpus formsPitfalls

1. When to take it and when not to

Instead	Selection rule
A creditor’s right and duty	claim_right(holder, against, content) is a query view of a duty (§129), not a modality or a new rule head. Write the position as duty, with bearer for the obliged party and beneficiary for the party entitled to performance
claim_right(...) vs duty	Query the correlative view with claim_right; create the normative position with a rule head duty. Both refer to the same position
Bare entitlement vs explicit lowering	There is no bare entitlement in the 0.2 surface. §131 requires a choice: a duty owed to a named party, a power to demand, a constitutive eligibility fact, or a combination. No choice — no norm
entitlement as power vs entitlement as fact	A power “to demand” (the organ decides, the effect follows) — power with the applicant as holder and conditions as valid_when. Stating “meets the conditions” (arithmetic decides, not an organ) — an institutional fact by a strict rule. Mix them up and the effect either awaits an event that never comes, or follows without the decision it needs
discretion vs power with options	Discretion is not a modality: liberty of choice is written as power with several admissible exercise/effect options plus legality constraints on the choice. There is no separate keyword

2. Minimal example

Package examples/claim-duty-mirror/: a teaching charge, a tribunal’s duty to afford a fair trial — expressed as duty with bearer and beneficiary. The old then claim spelling appears below only as historical material; new source uses duty.

Arxo Law

rule RightToFairTrial(who: Person, organ: Authority) strict {
    label ru-KZ official "Обвиняемый имеет право на справедливое разбирательство";
    when charged_by(who, organ);
    then duty FairTrial {
        bearer organ;
        beneficiary who;
        goal achievement {
            condition fair_trial_afforded(who);
            window [@2026-01-01, @2026-12-31];
        }
    };
}

Case facts: charged_by(accused, tribunal) and fair_trial_afforded(accused) with origin case_input. Query: evaluate truth(fair_trial_afforded(accused)).

The engine’s actual answer:

Output

law test research.claim.mirror: мир research.claim.mirror
  ok   [research.claim.mirror#authored] tests/01-granted.lawtest / urn:query:research-claim-01
  ok   [research.claim.mirror#authored] tests/02-absent.lawtest / urn:query:research-claim-02
итого: 2 проверено, 2 прошли, 0 не прошли, 0 не исполнены; код 0

law engine check — check OK with no warnings. Sensitivity: deleting the fair_trial_afforded fact changes the expectation from TRUE_ONLY to NEITHER (file tests/02-absent.lawtest) — the example is not vacuous.

Nearest wrong outcome: the same package with query evaluate positions(); expect position(FairTrial, SATISFIED); passes with both facts and decision_time inside the window — a claim lives on the duty ladder; it has no status of its own. The reverse would be the mistake: expecting claim to have its own status scale.

Second package examples/entitlement-as-power/ — the same lowering device for an entitlement into a power: an application produces the organ’s power to issue a permit, validity — valid_when (competent(a)):

Facts	Question	Answer	Why
application, competence, issuance act	permit_issued	TRUE_ONLY	a valid exercise materialized the effect
application, issuance act, no competence	permit_issued	NEITHER + POWER_INVALID_EXERCISE	the position exists, valid_when not held, no effect created

Second-package sensitivity: deleting competent changes the outcome from TRUE_ONLY to NEITHER with an issue (files tests/01-valid.lawtest, tests/02-invalid.lawtest).

3. Example across domains

• Law: an old corpus snapshot of package un.ilc.nuremberg_principles — Nuremberg Principles — contained then claim FairTrial (see corpus-forms.md). This is historical evidence, not a current syntax example; current source uses duty with bearer and beneficiary.
• Standard/protocol: no corpus use of claim outside law; the mirror device carries over unchanged: the party that is “due” is written as the provider duty’s beneficiary. A model power-lowering with valid_when — Kazakhstan Civil Code guardianship (see corpus-forms.md).
• Religion: the Quran, sura “Dominion” (package quran.mulk): the concealment/proclamation and movement liberties — the neighbouring form: permission is written as liberty, not as a claim; a claim here would be a wrong choice (nobody to be against).
• Science/teaching case: examples/entitlement-as-power/ — an applicant’s entitlement lowered to an organ’s power; the same scheme fits “a student may receive a certificate”: the dean’s power with issuance conditions as valid_when.

4. How the engine answers

Table — actual runs of this directory’s examples:

Facts	Question	Answer	Why
charge + trial held	fair_trial_afforded	TRUE_ONLY	the claim’s goal condition established
charge only	fair_trial_afforded	NEITHER	the goal premise not established
charge + trial (both facts)	positions(), FairTrial	SATISFIED	a claim is a duty: the achievement ladder
application + competence + act	permit_issued	TRUE_ONLY	effect of a valid exercise
application + act, no competence	permit_issued	NEITHER	valid_when not held; issue POWER_INVALID_EXERCISE (severity info), the position stays ACTIVE

• In positions a claim is visible under its own name (FairTrial) with duty statuses; the node modality is duty.
• In proof — an ordinary norm_creation node and rule_application; no trace of a “fifth modality”.
• In why_not a missing fact gives NEITHER: a claim does not substitute the article’s text.
• An invalid exercise attempt publishes the std literal invalidly_exercised(position) and an issue; the effect never materializes, the power itself stays ACTIVE.

5. Common mistakes

1. Duty parties swapped — the wrong party becomes obliged. Check bearer and beneficiary in the source and lowered node (see pitfalls.md).
2. A duty is missing a party or performance goal — complete the normative template (see pitfalls.md).
3. Bare entitlement as a rule head — parser refusal LDC-E0201 / LDC-E1305 (see pitfalls.md).
4. Querying claim_right(...) as creating a second position — there will be no duplicate; the view refers to the canonical position (see pitfalls.md).
5. Discretion as a separate modality — no keyword; written as power with options and constraints (see pitfalls.md).
6. Expecting claim_right to create or switch off a duty — it is a query view of an existing position, not its constructor (see pitfalls.md).

6. References

• The language specification defines modalities, correlative views, prohibition, entitlement lowering, discretion, and template identity; this page states how to use them.
• Details: corpus-forms.md, pitfalls.md, boundaries.md.