Claim pitfalls

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.

Typical mistakes when modelling correlative views, duties, and entitlements. Position codes and behaviour — per the duty page.

OverviewBoundariesCorpus formsPitfalls

1. The old then claim form — historical evidence only

The former syntax accepted then claim as a duty synonym; E-0071 described that behavior. The form has been removed from the current language surface. For new formalizations, use then duty with explicit parties: bearer is the obliged party, and beneficiary is entitled to performance.

Historical run before removal: a FairTrial example using then claim reported LDC-E1328. That result belongs to the former parser and does not describe current code or its expected diagnostics.

2. Swapped parties — silently wrong law

In a duty, bearer is the obliged party and beneficiary is entitled to performance. Check both fields in the source and node. The LAY-L2-CLAIM vector checks these parties and confirms that a claim_right query creates no duplicate position.

3. An incomplete view — a static refusal

In a duty, provide the obliged party, the beneficiary, and the performance goal. If one is missing, complete the duty template; do not try to replace it with the claim_right query view.

4. Bare entitlement as a rule head (confirmed by running)

then entitlement Name { … } in 0.2 is not “a static error with a code” but a parser refusal: the norm-head grammar has no entitlement. The probe in this study:

Output

error LDC-E0201: ожидалась `;`, найдено "AidEntitlement"
error LDC-E0201: неожиданный элемент тела правила: "AidEntitlement"
error LDC-E1305: ожидался атом-предикат p(...)

Choose the lowering before writing — a duty owed to the named party, a power to demand, a constitutive eligibility fact, or a combination. The word “entitlement” stays in labels and relation names (as in the EU Charter), but not in a rule head.

5. A query view instead of a second position

claim_right(holder, against, content) is a view, not a constructor: the core creates no duplicate norm instances; views refer to one canonical instance. Trying to “create a claim over another’s duty” gives no second position; a view question answers with the status of the same position. The reverse direction (duty → claim_right) produces no node for the same reason.

6. Discretion as a fifth modality

discretion has no keyword. Writing “the court may choose A or B” is power with several admissible exercise/effect options plus constraints/goals on the legality of the choice and evaluative predicates (reasonable, proportionate — which already belong to the judgment channel, see the judgment page). Searching the grammar for “discretion” finds the word only in comments.

7. claim_right does not create or switch off a norm

claim_right(holder, against, content) reads the canonical duty position from the beneficiary’s side (§129). It does not create a norm instance or cancel the duty.

8. Keywords are lowercase

In this directory’s code bearer/holder are written only as lowercase keywords; keep that spelling in new records.