# One contract, four systems

**Status:** the protocol is prepared and frozen, and the case bank is
fixed with hashes. Expected outcomes below are predictions from the
source texts, not results. The comparative run has **not** been
performed for any of the four systems.

This page describes one contract lifecycle that four contract systems are
asked to walk through: [Symboleo](/comparisons/symboleo/),
[Accord / Cicero](/comparisons/accord/), [Stipula](/comparisons/stipula/),
and Arxo. Each of the three neighbours already has its own prepared
experiment on its own sample contract. This scenario puts them on one
trace so that the same question gets four answers, side by side.

## The scenario in plain words

A seller and a buyer agree on a sale of goods worth 1000 USD. The seller
must deliver by a delivery deadline; the buyer must pay by a payment
deadline. If payment is late, the seller may suspend delivery and the
buyer may later resume it by paying within a window. If delivery fails,
the buyer may terminate. A late-delivery penalty accrues at 10.5 percent
of the price per 2-day period, capped at 55 percent of the price. The
buyer may terminate for delay only when the delay is strictly more than
15 days. Force majeure releases the penalty only when both the contract
clause and the request invoke it. A timeout `k` closes a window when
nobody acts.

There is no statute behind this scenario. It is a **union of three
published sample contracts**, chosen because no single one of them fits
the other two:

- Symboleo's meat-sale sample contributes delivery and payment
  obligations, a late-payment reparation, and the suspend, resume, and
  terminate powers — but has no money formula or cap.
- Accord's Late Delivery and Penalty template (from the
  [Cicero template library](https://github.com/accordproject/cicero-template-library),
  Apache-2.0) contributes the penalty formula, the cap, the strict
  termination threshold, bilateral force majeure, and refusals — but has
  no suspension and no state machine.
- Stipula's bike-rental example contributes agreement into an inactive
  state, calls allowed only in the right state, asset transfers, a timeout
  event, and an early end — but no penalty formula and no force majeure.

Every case in the bank names the case of the original sample it comes
from, so each source bank stays checkable on its own terms.

## The event trace

| Step | Event | What is observed |
|---|---|---|
| E0 | Agreement: parties, price, deadlines, rate, cap, threshold, `k` | positions created, initial state |
| E1 | Offer by the seller | transition to the waiting state |
| E2 | Delivery on time, late, or missing | delivery obligation fulfilled or violated |
| E3 | Payment on time, late within the window, or missing | payment obligation fulfilled or violated; reparation created on breach |
| E4 | Penalty accrual | amount = min(rate × fraction of period × price, cap); strict threshold for termination |
| E5 | Suspension of delivery, then resumption after late payment | suspended, then active again |
| E6 | Termination by choice, or successful completion | terminal projection |
| E7 | Force majeure: both sides, one side, or none | release only when both flags are set |
| E8 | Timeout `k` with no action | timeout event; the window closes |
| E9 | Terminal projection | one whole-contract state, defined by the experiment |

## What each system is asked to produce

- **Symboleo** — per-obligation and per-power states over the trace
  (fulfilment, violation, suspension, successful or unsuccessful
  termination), produced through its model checker. Its explanation is the
  checker's report or counterexample.
- **Accord** — the clause's answer to each request: the penalty as an
  amount with a currency code, the termination flag, the outgoing payment
  event, or a refusal. Its explanation is the answer plus the event.
- **Stipula** — the state of the contract program after each call, the
  asset transfers, the timeout event, and the final distribution. Its
  explanation is the execution trace.
- **Arxo** — the status of each duty and power at each step, the penalty
  as exact money with a currency, the termination liberty, and refusals
  as invalidly exercised powers. Its explanation is the proof graph of
  each answer.

The whole-contract "terminal state" is not an Arxo concept: Arxo reports
the status of each norm. The terminal projection used here is the
experiment's own rule, frozen after the first run and scored separately.

## The case bank

Fourteen base cases and three edit cases. "Posed by" lists the systems
for which the case is meaningful; the others do not observe that part of
the lifecycle.

| Case | Situation | Expected outcome (from the source texts) | Posed by | Comparability |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| S01 | Delivery and payment both on time | both obligations fulfilled; success projection; penalty 0 | all four | comparable |
| S02 | No payment by the deadline | payment violated; reparation obligation created | all four | comparable |
| S03 | Delivery suspended, then late payment within the window | suspended, then active again | Symboleo, Stipula, Arxo | comparable |
| S04 | Delivery breached, buyer chooses to terminate | delivery violated; unsuccessful termination | Symboleo, Stipula, Arxo | comparable |
| S05 | Delivery made after the deadline | still violated: the deadline wins over the late fact | Symboleo, Accord, Arxo | comparable |
| S06 | Delivery fulfilled; the suspension power never used | the power expires or terminates unused | Symboleo, Arxo | comparable |
| S07 | Both obligations breached | both violated; unsuccessful projection | Symboleo, Arxo | comparable |
| S08 | Power with a deadline, exercised after it | expired, then terminated | Symboleo, Stipula, Arxo | comparable |
| S09 | Delays of 1, 4, and 30 days; exactly 15 days | 52.5, 210, and 550 (capped) USD; termination false at 15, true at 30 | Accord, Arxo | comparable |
| S10 | Force majeure on both sides, on one side, none | penalty 0 only when both are set | Accord, Arxo | comparable |
| S11 | Refusals: unsupported duration unit, future delivery date; zero base; omitted optional field; event content | refusal for the two invalid calls; omitted field has no effect; event names amount and parties | Accord, Arxo | comparable |
| S12 | The "buyer is not the seller" constraint is violated | open: the sources show no observable outcome | Symboleo, Arxo | not comparable |
| S13 | Obligations meant to survive an unsuccessful end | open: the published semantics are unsettled | Symboleo, Arxo | not comparable |
| S14 | Fractional period: delay of 3 days | template code gives 157.5; template text reads as 210 | Accord, Arxo | not comparable |
| P1 | Money changes from a bare number to an amount with currency | edition A answers 210.0; edition B answers 210 USD | Accord, Arxo | not comparable across editions |
| P2 | An obligation gains a precondition; the threshold changes from a raw amount to a unit conversion | threshold of 2 weeks with a 4-day delay: edition A true, edition B false | Symboleo, Accord, Arxo | not comparable across editions |
| P3 | Timeout `k` small versus large on the same contract | small `k`: the timeout wins; large `k`: the early end wins | Stipula, Arxo | not comparable across editions |

Within one edition, the edit cases still score match or mismatch; only
pairs that span two editions are set aside.

## When answers count as the same

- **Match** — statuses and flags are equal as strings after the published
  mapping (for example, Arxo's "violated" against Symboleo's
  "Violation"). Money agrees within a relative tolerance of one in a
  million, plus a stated allowance for Accord's wall-clock time: the
  studied template reads the current date, so a penalty can drift by the
  accrual over the run's duration. The raw difference is always kept.
- **Not comparable** — the two sides answer different questions. Five
  grounds are fixed in advance: a violated constraint with no observable
  outcome in the sources (S12); obligations whose surviving semantics are
  open in the published papers (S13); split-in-half amounts in Stipula,
  whose exact semantics are not established (only the signs of the shares
  are compared); pairs that span two editions (P1–P3); and a template
  whose code and text disagree on fractional periods (S14).
- **Mismatch** — the same question, under the same edition, got different
  answers. The cause stays open until the source texts settle it.

Some properties compare only between some pairs. The penalty formula and
force majeure compare only between Accord and Arxo; suspension and
resumption compare only among Symboleo, Stipula, and Arxo. A refusal is
an observable outcome on every side that has one — a thrown error, an
invalidly exercised power, or a missing transition — and the error text
itself is never compared. Explanations are compared as a qualitative pair
(checker report, event, trace, proof graph), not byte for byte.

## The Arxo side

The Arxo model for this scenario is already written as a small standalone
package, independent of any law in the corpus. It passes the language's
static check with no diagnostics; its own scenarios are written but have
not been executed. It follows the template **code** of Accord's newer
edition (continuous fraction of a period, cap as a minimum, strict
threshold) and the texts of the Symboleo and Stipula samples.

Two short excerpts. The rate and the cap are named constants:

```law
const PENALTY_PCT: Decimal = 10.5 percent;
const CAP_PCT: Decimal = 55 percent;
```

The termination right is closed over admitted calls: where no rule
establishes the right, its absence is stated explicitly rather than left
unknown. That is how the exact-15-days case is meant to answer "false" rather
than "not established":

```law
closure TerminationDefault {
    predicate buyer_may_terminate;
    domain call_admitted;
    snapshot "urn:stand:shared-contract-lifecycle:cases:2026-09-30";
    complete_as_of @2026-09-30T00:00:00Z;
    derive_explicit_negative true;
}
```

Cases S12 and S13 have no Arxo rules on purpose: the sources give no
observable outcome, so the model stays silent rather than guess. Force
majeure flags and trace events enter as established facts of the case;
nothing in this scenario calls for an evaluative judgment.

## Out of scope

- Subcontracting, assignment, and substitution (Symboleo).
- Generating contract text from data (Accord).
- Liquidity and reachability analyses (Stipula).
- Second-order powers.
- Performance: timing, if recorded, is informative and never a criterion.
- Monitoring on a ledger.
- Exhaustive model checking over all paths — a Symboleo strength with no
  counterpart in a per-query answer, outside this comparison by design.

## What a result will and will not say

When the run happens, the result will be a per-case table of the four
answers and one outcome each. Agreement on these seventeen cases will not
show that the four languages are equivalent, nor that the four models
formalize the same contract. Each neighbour's pins, licences, and source
hashes are recorded in its own experiment; copies of samples whose
licence is not stated are kept as hashes only.

Materials: experiments/comparisons/shared/contract-lifecycle/ in the
project repository. See also the [methodology](/comparisons/methodology/).