# Constraints: corpus forms

Breakdown of real fragments: package identifier, human act name, form rating
(exemplary / debatable / wrong form choice) and why.

## Law and standards

### 1. IAS 37 — provision constraint (exemplary)

Package `eu.ias.provisions` (IAS 37, provisions), recognition of provisions:

```law
constraint Para14RequiresPresentObligation(x: Item) {
    when entity_recognised_provision(x);
    require present_obligation(x);
    severity error;
    message "paragraph 14 (a): a provision shall be recognised when ...";
}
```

Exemplary: a provision recognised in reporting without a present obligation
is case incoherence, not a holder-bearing norm violation. `message` quotes
the paragraph verbatim — the finding reads standalone, without consulting
the source.

### 2. IAS 37 — series of three constraints (exemplary)

Same package: `Para14RequiresProbableOutflow`,
`Para14RequiresReliableEstimate` — the three paragraph-14 conditions as
three independent checks. Exemplary: every finding is addressable; one rule
with a conjunction would give one indistinguishable refusal.

### 3. 1977 USSR Constitution on secession — parameterless constraint (debatable)

Package `su.constitution_1977_secession` (1977 USSR Constitution, secession):

```law
constraint Article010PropertyMisuseConstraint {
```

Without binders in the header (allowed: header and `for` are mutually
exclusive). Debatable, not exemplary: grounding without
positive binders risks leaving range restriction unsatisfied — the reader must
verify where substitutions come from instead of reading them from the
header.

## Religion and custom

### 4. Faraid — heir-composition coherence (exemplary)

Package `faraid.shares` (Faraid inheritance shares, Islamic law), residue:

```law
constraint SonImpliesMaleDescendant(e: Estate, h: Heir) {
    when son(e, h);
    require has_male_descendant(e);
    severity error;
    message "объявлен сын, но наследующий потомок мужского пола не установлен ...";
}
```

Exemplary (the in-file comment directly forbids a rule: inference would make
`has_male_descendant` inferable and break negation on it in the daughter
and sister rules — the core has no negation-as-failure). The canonical “check,
don’t infer” example for the whole section.

### 5. Warlpiri — marriage classes as a constraint (exemplary)

Package `custom.warlpiri.kinship` (Warlpiri kinship, Australian customary law) —
`constraint WrongSkinMarriageConstraint(h: Person, w: Person)`;
avoidance law — `constraint AvoidanceViolation`.
Exemplary: kinship taboo is case-composition incoherence, not a
holder-and-window prohibition (a prohibition has a
bearer and a window; here there are none — see the
[prohibitions page](/constructs/prohibition/)).

## Science

### 6. Doctrine chemistry — capacities as constraints (exemplary)

Package `chem.rules` (doctrine chemistry rules) —
`constraint PauliOrbitalCapacity(o: Orbital, k: Integer)`;
oxidation — `constraint MainAtomCountPositive`.
Exemplary: laws of nature as coherence checks — they have no holder, and
positions are not due to them.

## Adjacent forms

### 7. `only_if` as constraint sugar (form boundary)

`X only_if Y` desugars to `when X; require Y`. Never infers `Y`: an
author wanting inference writes an explicit rule. Rating: not a mistake but
a reserved path — it occurs in the corpus as sugar, and every such case
reads as a constraint, not as a rule.