Choosing a construct

ActionsArtifactVerification

Task and place

After vocabulary fixes what the model talks about, construct choice fixes how each norm behaves: what the machine establishes by itself, what it checks without deriving, and what stays silent. This stage sits before rule drafting and after vocabulary. Every close call it settles goes on a decision record in the next stage.

Inputs

• The reviewed vocabulary from the previous stage.
• The included inventory rows with their content units.
• The decision record template for close calls.

Actions

• Ask the deciding question first: may the system establish this by itself? If the act merely requires things to be so, the answer is a check; if the act makes it so by its word, the answer derives.
• Route each norm through the table below and name the rejected neighbor.
• For close neighbors, write the distinguishing scenario before drafting: the smallest fact set that yields different answers under each candidate.
• Prefer the weaker behavior that still satisfies the act: derive only what the act establishes, and check the rest.

The act says	Behavior needed	Construct	The machine
this follows, always	establish the conclusion with no exceptions	strict rule	derives
this follows, unless excepted	establish the conclusion, removably	defeasible rule with an escape	derives, removably
remove support, asserting nothing	block without denying	defeater	silences, never denies
this is one who dots, and back	abbreviate with two-way meaning	exact definition	derives and checks the converse
sort into a class, with exceptions	qualify defeasibly	defeasible classification	derives, removably
with this there must be that	check, derive nothing	constraint	reports, never derives
this counts as that	recognize an institutional fact	fiction	derives an institutional fact
one value from inputs	compute	function	derives a value
inputs route to outputs by rows	route under a hit policy	decision table	derives a value
events move a case through states	track a lifecycle	procedure	moves state, derives nothing
repeated derivation in rounds	index the derivation	derivation stage	derives per round

Decisions

• The construct for each norm, with the rejected neighbor named in the construct map.
• Which close calls need a decision record. In the running example the tariff shape needs one (EAI-D1); the records themselves are written in the next stage.

Artifact

The artifact is a construct map: each norm paired with its construct and its distinguishing scenario. The scenario pairs below are the map’s core; each row is read as same facts, then the one fact that tells the neighbors apart.

Neighbors	Same facts	Discriminating fact	Outcomes
escape versus denial versus defeater	a resident driver	suspension, or outstanding fines, or a fraud flag	silence, or denied, or support removed without denial
exact definition versus defeasible classification	a qualifying senior-parking applicant	a fraud flag	stays established under the definition; returns to neither under the classification plus defeater
constraint versus consequence rule	an issued permit with the fee unpaid	the fee fact itself	an issue reported beside the standing fact versus a total derived with nothing reported
function versus decision table	a twelve-month application	overlapping rows	one computed value versus the routed row; an overlap complains under the unique policy
procedure versus derivation stage	a station in review, an allotment in rounds	a filing event versus the round index	the event moves the case versus round two reading round one
plain fact versus admission versus closure	a resident on file	a verified document edge versus register completeness	asked directly versus admitted through conjuncts versus absence-becoming-denial inside the domain

Worked example

The running example maps all five touched articles to strict rules (plus two assumed inputs — the insured sum under Article Sixteen and the risk-class attribution under Article Seventeen point 3), since none admits exceptions. The map reads:

Norm	Construct	Why not the neighbor
Employer duty, Article Eight	strict rule from employment facts to the institutional duty	no exception in the article; nothing to check without deriving
Tariff rows, Article Seventeen	twenty-two strict rules, one per class	each row carries its own source label; recorded as EAI-D1
Premium, Article Seventeen	three strict rules: base as insured sum times rate, then base-or-floor split on one comparison	the amount must be derived; a constraint would check without producing it — recorded as EAI-D4
Payout, Article Nineteen	strict rule with inclusive guards	the bounds are applicability conditions in the body; below thirty the rule stays silent rather than denying
Penalty, Article Nine	strict computation rule, unpaid times rate times days	same as the premium: derive, not check

The class twenty-two premium test and the thirty-versus-twenty-nine payout pair are the distinguishing scenarios made executable: they are the facts that would read differently under the rejected neighbors.

Pitfall

The costliest mistake is writing a rule where the act needs a check: an issued document that must have a return term, written as a rule, would establish a term nobody assigned. Its mirror is checking where the act establishes: a constraint on the premium would leave the amount underived. When in doubt, return to the deciding question.

Verification

The stage is done when the suite passes seven of seven and the boundary pair straddles: thirty percent qualifies while twenty-nine does not. Observed run with tool version law 0.1.0, semantics law.core/0.2:

Output

law test kz.corpus.employee_accident_insurance: мир kz.corpus.employee_accident_insurance
  ok   [kz.corpus.employee_accident_insurance#authored] tests/core.lawtest / EAI-EMPLOYER-MUST-INSURE
  ok   [kz.corpus.employee_accident_insurance#authored] tests/core.lawtest / EAI-MINING-CLASS-22-PREMIUM
  ok   [kz.corpus.employee_accident_insurance#authored] tests/core.lawtest / EAI-LOSS-THIRTY-QUALIFIES
  ok   [kz.corpus.employee_accident_insurance#authored] tests/core.lawtest / EAI-LOSS-TWENTY-NINE-IS-NOT-INSURER-PAYOUT
  ok   [kz.corpus.employee_accident_insurance#authored] tests/core.lawtest / EAI-SPECIAL-LATE-PAYMENT-PENALTY
  ok   [kz.corpus.employee_accident_insurance#authored] tests/goals.lawtest / GoalEstablishedCapacityLossHasPayout-world
  ok   [kz.corpus.employee_accident_insurance#authored] tests/goals.lawtest / urn:kz:corpus:clir:employee-accident-insurance#GoalEstablishedCapacityLossHasPayout
итого: 7 проверено, 7 прошли, 0 не прошли, 0 не исполнены; код 0

[translation] The header line names the tested world; the summary line reads: seven checked, seven passed, zero failed, zero unexecuted, exit code zero.

Criterion: all seven lines read ok, and the two boundary tests disagree in the expected direction. A construct change that collapses the boundary pair fails here.

Limits

The machine checks the form of the choice, never its fidelity to the act: a strict rule where the act allows exceptions still passes. Close calls stay author judgment, which is why they need records.

Next step

Continue with Recording decisions, which writes the records for the close calls found here.

Sources

• Northbridge course — the neighbor-construct drills this stage leans on.
• Definitions and friends — which shapes derive and which only check.
• Language reference — syntax and semantics of every construct.
• Vocabulary first — the previous stage.