Markdown for LLMs
Precedent: corpus forms
The source Markdown for this article. Copy it into your assistant or download it as a text file.
# 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
`<P>/holding` node, never handwritten (no hits in code).
- `argue`/`court` as declarations: absent everywhere — see `boundaries.md`.