# Precedent: corpus forms Analysis of real fragments: package identifier, act name, the key fragment, form rating (exemplary / debatable / wrong-form choice) and why. Declaration search: limited-output searches for `factors`, `precedent`, `holding`/`overruled`/`ratio` and bare `precedent` mentions across the act corpus (the last with noise — see "False positives"). ## Common law ### 1. OfferFactors vocabulary — the closed "advertisement as offer" line (exemplary, inspected) Package `us.caselaw.advertisement_offers` — US advertisement-offer cases (United States): ```law factors OfferFactors { ... for c: Communication, i: Item; domain advertisement(c), announces_item_on_stated_terms(c, i); plaintiff clear_definite_and_explicit, leaves_nothing_open_for_negotiation, identifies_who_may_accept, states_steps_to_accept, invites_performance_of_a_specified_act, deposit_shows_sincerity, words_of_limitation, promises_reward_for_performance; defendant reserves_details_to_separate_writing, item_absent_from_referenced_writing, seeks_reciprocal_promise, evidently_done_in_jest, mere_puff; courts MN_SUPREME; EWCA; SDNY; } ``` Exemplary: a two-variable signature, the domain binds both; side is a vocabulary property; the three jurisdictions' courts incomparable — not one `>` chain, so no generated priorities between holdings and the honest conflict stays possible (file comment). The `mere_puff` judgment factor is in the vocabulary, hence the `JUDGMENT_PENDING` status. ### 2. Lefkowitz — a π-side outcome with ratio and prefer over (exemplary, inspected) Package `us.caselaw.advertisement_offers` — Lefkowitz decision (United States): ```law precedent Lefkowitz of OfferFactors { ... court MN_SUPREME; decided @1957-12-20; plaintiff clear_definite_and_explicit, leaves_nothing_open_for_negotiation, identifies_who_may_accept, states_steps_to_accept, words_of_limitation; outcome offer_of(c, i); ratio clear_definite_and_explicit, leaves_nothing_open_for_negotiation; prefer over AdvertisementIsNotAnOffer; } ``` Exemplary: `decided` mandatory; `ratio` is a subset of `X_π` (reason model); `prefer over` beats a named general defeasible rule of the statutory line. ### 3. Leonard — a mirrored δ-side holding without priority (exemplary, inspected) Package `us.caselaw.advertisement_offers` — Leonard decision (United States) (file head — the factor-set analysis): ```law precedent Leonard of OfferFactors { ... court SDNY; decided @1999-08-05; defendant reserves_details_to_separate_writing, item_absent_from_referenced_writing, ... } ``` Exemplary: the δ-side holding mirrored (body — all of `X_δ` plus `not_known` for every vocabulary π-factor); agrees with the general rule — no priority needed; no priority against the `Lefkowitz`/`Carlill` holdings — courts incomparable, and three holdings binding one case would honestly conflict. ### 4. Carlill — third node of the same base (exemplary) Package `us.caselaw.advertisement_offers` — Carlill decision (United States): ```law precedent Carlill of OfferFactors { ``` Rated exemplary by membership in the same link (vocabulary, courts, the abstract `promises_reward_for_performance` factor with the strict `AdvertisementInvitingPerformanceIsAPromiseOfReward` rule in the factors file). The body was not taken apart in detail during the research. ## KZ law ### 5. Bank-loan NP — a resolution as a precedent base (exemplary, inspected) Package `kz.corpus.np_bank_loan_disputes` — Kazakh bank-loan dispute resolutions (Kazakhstan): ```law factors VinaKreditoraFactors { label ru-KZ official "словарь факторов пункта 11: ..."; for sp: Spor; domain spor_iz_dogovora_bankovskogo_zayma(sp); plaintiff kreditor_sodeystvoval_uvelicheniyu_ubytkov, kreditor_ne_prinyal_razumnyh_mer, iskusstvennoe_zatyagivanie_podachi_iska, dolzhnik_obratilsya_pismenno_k_kreditoru, dolzhnik_raskryl_prichiny_zadolzhennosti; defendant kreditor_obratilsya_svoevremenno, dolzhnik_ne_obrashchalsya_k_kreditoru; courts VS_RK; } ``` ```law precedent VinaKreditoraUmenshaetDolyu of VinaKreditoraFactors { ... court VS_RK; decided @2016-11-25; plaintiff kreditor_sodeystvoval_uvelicheniyu_ubytkov, kreditor_ne_prinyal_razumnyh_mer; outcome dolya_otvetstvennosti_umenshena(sp); ratio kreditor_sodeystvoval_uvelicheniyu_ubytkov, kreditor_ne_prinyal_razumnyh_mer; prefer over DolyaOtvetstvennostiNeUmenshaetsya; } ``` Exemplary: the same form link as in the US cases, in another legal family. The file holds four vocabularies in total (`VinaKreditoraFactors`, `VinaDolzhnikaFactors`, `SnizhenieNeustoykiFactors`, `NesorazmernostZalogaFactors`) and five precedents. One court (`VS_RK`), each `ratio` named with support from the item text ("the ground named by the item ITSELF"). A form feature: the opponent general rule `DolzhnikNeOsvobozhdaetsya` is defeasible with a `not ...` head, and the wire to the Civil Code head (`debtor_liable_for_breach`) reads in the base rule, not in the domain — otherwise the domain would narrow the test's scope with the very conclusion the test disputes. ## Search false positives (not profile forms) - `condition precedent` / `conditions precedent` in source texts (quoted act texts about conditions precedent) — quotes from English-language acts, not profile declarations. - `precedent` in comments — colloquial "by the model", not a form. - `ratio: Decimal` (a coefficient field in benefit and allocation packages) — a coefficient field, not a precedent `ratio` item. - `factors uniquely as` in a mathematical formalization package and `factors and outcomes` in a medical source — plain English text. ## What the corpus lacks - `overruled` in declarations: a corpus search gave no hits — holding repeal is not registered in the corpus (covered by a conformance scenario). - A standalone `holding` as a declaration: a holding is only a generated `

/holding` node, never handwritten (no hits in code). - `argue`/`court` as declarations: absent everywhere — see `boundaries.md`.