# Duty forms from the corpus

> Updated 3 October 2026: `concept`, `except_when`, `claim`, `definition … sufficient`, and `default` strength have been removed, together with their special deprecation diagnostic. References below to the former behavior and corpus sources are historical. New source uses `relation`, `unless`, `duty`, a strict rule, and `defeasible`.

Samples from different domains, each with the package identifier, the act, and a verdict.

## 1. Exemplary: the military readiness duty

Package `us.army.training` — US Army training norms (`UnitTrainingReadiness`):

```law
    then duty UnitTrainingReadiness {
```

Verdict: exemplary. A deontic position outside civil law —
a role's behaviour under a norm (CLAUDE.md invariant: protocol `MUST`).
Addressed bearer, performance window.

## 2. Exemplary: the ethical duty of tolerance

Package `mng.corpus.yasa` — the Mongol Yasa (`RespectAllReligions`):

```law
        then duty RespectAllReligions {
```

Verdict: exemplary. The same form for an ethical norm of a historic act;
confirms that `duty` carries beyond law.

## 3. Exemplary: court procedural duties

Package `kz.corpus.np_bank_loan_disputes` — Kazakh banking-dispute casework (five court duties):

```law
    expect position(IssledovatDogovor, ACTIVE);
```

Five court duties with a `[den, infinity)` window; the ACTIVE scenario holds
all five, SATISFIED discharges exactly its own goal by the goal's
achievement fact.

Verdict: exemplary. A model use of `position(Name, STATUS)`
and of a window from a case variable.

## 4. Exemplary: prohibition with an open window

Package `kz.corpus.labour_code` — Labour Code of Kazakhstan (`TerminateDuringIncapacity`):
a prohibition with `window [since, infinity)` for
`for since: Date` bound by a premise.

Verdict: exemplary. The canonical way to say "prohibited since a date, indefinitely"
instead of a bare boundary name (the `LDC-E2115` trap).

## 5. Exemplary: window from a deadline term

Package `intl.vienna.succession_treaties` — Vienna Convention on Succession of States (1978):
`during [appointed, add_calendar_period(appointed, 60 calendar_day)]`
(the short `during` form instead of `window`).

Verdict: exemplary, with a condition: a term boundary requires a deadline policy,
otherwise `MISSING_POLICY` (see the [time page](/constructs/time/)).

## 6. Disputed: tautological goals

Places where the goal
condition equals a positive conjunct of the rule body: the duty is always
`SATISFIED` — warning `LDC-E1371`,
warning level, because "a duty performed by the fact" is a
legitimate reading of the source.

Verdict: disputed. Check each: usually the author meant a performance
predicate that is missing from the body.

## 7. Wrong form choice: a paired duty next to a prohibition

An older pattern expressed a prohibition breach with a paired
`goal maintenance` duty with a `not_done(x)` condition. Now the `action` fact itself in
the window gives the prohibition's `VIOLATED`, and the pair gives a second `VIOLATED` for
the same breach.

Verdict: wrong form choice. Do not duplicate a prohibition with a duty.

## 8. Error: `claim` instead of `duty`

The single `then claim` in the corpus — an old synonym of
`duty` with cross-wired parties; in 0.2 it is an error
(`LDC-E1328`).

Verdict: error. Write `duty` directly.