Markdown for LLMs

Judgment channel: boundaries

The source Markdown for this article. Copy it into your assistant or download it as a text file.

# Judgment channel: boundaries

What the construct does NOT do: limits, reserved values, neighbouring constructs, and the selection rule.

## Does not

- **Not decide for the judge.** The channel names the wait, never closes it:
  before the answer the result is `NEITHER`, a power's effect never materializes
  (a validity condition gives no support) — only the explanation of the missing effect changes.
- **Not enumerate witnesses without support.** A goal-unbound variable
  is bound by a store witness: only a positive literal
  conjunct with a `TRUE_ONLY`/`BOTH` pair, arguments as variables,
  `entity_ref`, `value`. A computed argument, a constant, `_`,
  negation, `not_known`/`refuted`/`unknown` give no witnesses;
  the cap is eight continuations per rule. An unbound variable on
  a non-judgment conjunct leaves it out of analysis (`COMPUTED`).
- **Not read the quantifier.** Per-element quantifier reading stays atomless
  for now (a known remainder, not an exception).
- **Not pass the judge through `BOTH`.** A consumer conjunct with a
  `BOTH` pair is dead: a priority judge never passes through it.
- **Not masked by a term error.** `INTERPRETATION_REQUIRED`,
  `UNRESOLVED_NORMATIVE_CONFLICT`, `REQUIRES_JUDGMENT` outrank term
  computation errors: "the court decides" shows even where "not computed".
- **Not compute in the explanation.** The explanation walk never counts: head
  compatibility is by form, witnesses by store reading; a candidate rule with
  a term error is found by the "by predicate" walk, which never looks for judges.

## Reserved and closed

- `authority` is an institution identifier, not a term; metadata `issuer`
  and `jurisdiction` are not terms either.
- An answer with `judgment` but no `request_schema` on the declaration is
  `JUDGMENT_PAYLOAD_MISMATCH`: nobody can check the answer's form.
- An answer from the wrong organ is `JUDGMENT_AUTHORITY_MISMATCH` (error), the support
  rejected, `REQUIRES_JUDGMENT` stays.
- Query order is the canonical `order_requests`, no repeats.

## Neighbours and the selection rule

- The judgment channel vs a court fact vs a reading: the outcome
  unknown — judgment; the outcome given — a fact; the text twofold — a reading.
  The choice goes in a comment on the feature.
- `REQUIRES_JUDGMENT` vs `COMPUTED` at `NEITHER`: the first is "the
  named organ decides", the second is "facts missing". A test asserting only
  `truth_status` never tells them apart.
- `adjudicated` vs `case_input`: the organ's answer vs a party's allegation.
- A live vs a dead rule: a query only where
  the answer changes the outcome.
- A condition's judge vs a consequence's judge: a rule reading a transition fact
  inherits the transition's judges; whoever asked about the consequence learns that
  the tribunal decides — in earlier behavior this stayed silent.