Evidence and admission

ActionsArtifactVerification

Task and place

Until now a stated fact was believed on sight. In a dispute that no longer holds: the question becomes what counts as established at all. This stage sits at the scenarios and case steps, after the rules are fixed. It separates three layers — admission of support, burden of proof, and truth of the matter — so that a lost document is never mistaken for a refuted fact.

Inputs

• The case material: documents with publisher, dates, content hash, and content fields; verifications pinning someone else’s hash check; supports linking documents to statements.
• The admission policy: package rules saying which supports count, written before the case arrives.
• The running example suite as the no-policy baseline: plain claims, no documents, all seven passing.
• The filled EAI scope card, which states the case shape the suite covers.

Actions

• Keep four words apart: a claim is a stated literal with its supply note; a document is a published item with a hash; a support links one document to one statement, for or against; admission is the policy decision that a support counts. For a protected predicate under a selected policy, only an admitted support gives the literal any support; unprotected predicates still establish by plain claim, policy or no policy.
• Judge each support on its own. One document may be admitted for one statement and rejected for another. A rejected support gives support to neither side — and a rejection is never proof of the denial.
• Run the pass-or-fail pairs below through the policy. The starred rows are proven by the admission drill quoted on this page; the rest restate the evidence drill’s taxonomy.

Presented material, policy selected	Support verdict	Statement
bank confirmation plus matching hash check plus support ★	admitted	payment established
self-issued confirmation, everything else in order	rejected	payment undecided
confirmation with no hash check	rejected	payment undecided
check whose hash mismatches the document ★	rejected	payment undecided
confirmation about another purchase ★	rejected	payment undecided
bare claim of the protected payment fact, no document ★	blocked	payment undecided
admitted reversal, refuting side ★	admitted	payment denied
admitted confirmation and admitted reversal together ★	both admitted	payment conflicted

• Read the typed report, not the graph, for why a support failed: each support gets a decision with causes, each document gets availability, currency, and authenticity checks with a hash-binding flag.
• Place the burden separately as a duty over an epistemic aim: who must present what by when. An unmet burden leaves the duty unfulfilled — still no denial of the fact. Unproven and absent are different layers, and nothing in the core bridges them for free.

Decisions

• Which predicates are protected — established only through admitted support — and which stay open to plain claims.
• The acceptance rules: what counts as a sound document and a well-formed support.
• Where the burden duties sit, with bearers, aims, and windows.

Artifact

The artifact is the admission policy with its acceptance rules plus a reading of one report per support: admitted or rejected, with causes. The running example contributes the degenerate artifact: no policy at all, so every fact enters by plain claim and there is nothing to admit or reject.

EAI example

The employee accident insurance package, version 0.1.0, language 0.2, zero dependencies, explicit local imports, pinned to edition EAI_EDITION with materialization PINNED_UNOFFICIAL_COPY — an Adilet API copy retrieved 2026-09-13, sha256 pinned, local copy kept in the package — selects no evidence policy: a search over the package sources finds no policy declaration. Every claim in both suites carries the plain supply note, checked across all seven claims:

Arxo Law

test "EAI-LOSS-THIRTY-QUALIFIES" {
 given { context { decision_time @2026-09-13T12:00:00+05:00; knowledge_time @2026-09-13T12:00:00+05:00; legal_time @2026-09-13; timezone "Asia/Almaty"; }
  assert "loss": capacity_loss_percent(entity_ref("urn:kz:eai:worker:30"), 30) { origin case_input; }
 }
 evaluate truth(insurance_payout_due(entity_ref("urn:kz:eai:worker:30")));
 expect truth_status == TRUE_ONLY;
}

With no policy selected, stated facts establish directly: loss thirty has payout while loss twenty-nine stays undecided, the class twenty-two premium derives 29600 KZT on an insured sum of one million, the late penalty derives exactly 3000 KZT.

Say plainly what that proves and what it does not. It proves the rules behave as written under the stated facts. It does not prove any document authentic, any loss figure true, any payroll figure real, or any burden met — the suite presents no documents, runs no checks, and assigns no burden. Those would need a policy, material, and duties the package does not contain.

Pitfall

Four confusions, one root: treating a weak record as a strong one. A rejected support read as a refutation. A document certifying itself through its own status field — self-description grants no privilege. A bare claim of a protected predicate expected to work while a policy is selected — it is blocked, with an informational flag. An unmet burden read as a denial of the fact.

Verification

The run below was executed for this page with tool version law 0.1.0, semantics law.core/0.2:

Output

$ law test corpus/laws/kz/laws/employee-accident-insurance
law test kz.corpus.employee_accident_insurance: world 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
total: 7 checked, 7 passed, 0 failed, 0 not run; code 0

The baseline proves the degenerate half: with no policy selected, every stated fact establishes directly and all seven pass. The policy half is proven by the admission drill — one protected predicate, one policy, six scenes. Observed with the same tool version:

Output

$ law test docs/handbook/files/fixtures/evidence-admission
law test demo.handbook.evidence_admission: world demo.handbook.evidence_admission
  ok   [demo.handbook.evidence_admission#authored] tests/admission.lawtest / admitted support establishes
  ok   [demo.handbook.evidence_admission#authored] tests/admission.lawtest / rejected support leaves undecided
  ok   [demo.handbook.evidence_admission#authored] tests/admission.lawtest / hash mismatch leaves undecided
  ok   [demo.handbook.evidence_admission#authored] tests/admission.lawtest / bare claim of protected fact is blocked
  ok   [demo.handbook.evidence_admission#authored] tests/admission.lawtest / admitted refuting support denies
  ok   [demo.handbook.evidence_admission#authored] tests/admission.lawtest / admitted for and against conflict
total: 6 checked, 6 passed, 0 failed, 0 not run; code 0

Each scene was inspected in the suite file; the material, the verdict, and the policy rule that decides it read:

Scene	Presented material	Statement	Deciding rule
admitted support establishes	confirmation of purchase 42, matching hash check	TRUE_ONLY	AcceptPayment fires
rejected support leaves undecided	genuine confirmation about purchase 99	NEITHER	identity conjunct fails, support not accepted
hash mismatch leaves undecided	check pins a hash the document lacks	NEITHER	ev_authentic never projects, SoundDocument fails
bare claim of protected fact is blocked	assert paid(42), no document	NEITHER	predicate protected, claim contributes nothing
admitted refuting support denies	accepted reversal alone	FALSE_ONLY	AcceptReversal fires
admitted for and against conflict	accepted confirmation plus accepted reversal	BOTH	both fire; conflict reported, not resolved

Read the report behind the table: the two NEITHER rejections fail at different rules — identity versus soundness — and the suite distinguishes them by construction, since each scene varies exactly one defect. Denial arrives only through the fifth scene’s admitted reversal; no rejection in the file proves a denial.

Criterion: the baseline passes seven of seven with no policy, and the drill passes six of six with the policy selected — the admitted pair, two distinct rejections, the blocked bare claim, the denial, and the conflict. A package that adds a policy must show the same shape passing before it claims any admission behavior.

Limits

Admission answers whether a statement is established on what was presented. It never answers who had to present — that is the burden duty — and never answers whether the matter is really so. An acceptance rule reads only the policy’s own slots and heads: the phase that decides admissibility may not depend on the derivation it makes possible. And a bare NEITHER after a rejection says nothing about the other side; denial always needs its own admitted support.

Next step

Continue with Time and calendars, which pins every dated fact and every norm window to an explicit axis.

Sources

• Evidence exercise — the drill behind the pass-or-fail pairs.
• Duty — the burden as a duty with bearer, aim, and window.
• Four states of support — what each verdict preserves.
• Reading an answer — where the typed report lives.
• Diagnostics — refusal codes and their meanings.
• Readings and judgment — the previous stage.