Markdown for LLMs
Priority: corpus forms
The source Markdown for this article. Copy it into your assistant or download it as a text file.
# Priority: corpus forms
Breakdown of real fragments: package identifier, human act name, form rating
(exemplary / debatable / wrong form choice) and why.
## Law
### 1. Administrative Offences Code of Kazakhstan — edge grounded in lex specialis (exemplary)
Package `kz.corpus.administrative_code` (Administrative Offences Code of Kazakhstan),
emergency vehicles and signals:
```law
priority Article607PartOneOverArticle599PartOne {
label ru-KZ official "Состав железнодорожного переезда сильнее общего состава запрещающего сигнала";
prefer Article607PartOneDisplacesArticle599PartOne over TrafficRulesProhibitingSignalClassifiedUnderArticle599PartOne;
reason lex_specialis;
}
```
Exemplary: exactly one edge per declaration, the ground named
explicitly, and the comment above in the file records the counterfactual —
“without the edge the defeater would have given Contradiction”. The same ground — in
the road-traffic duties file of the same package.
### 2. Administrative Offences Code of Kazakhstan, sanctions — series of edges of one special norm (exemplary)
Package `kz.corpus.administrative_code` (Administrative Offences Code of Kazakhstan),
general sanctions:
```law
prefer Article44PartThreePercentageFineIsOutsidePartTwoLimits over Article44PartTwoPrivateIndividualFineLimitIsTwoHundredMRP;
```
Three more edges of the same special norm
over other general limits (private individual, official, small and medium
business). Exemplary: the second edge is written as a separate declaration,
not a second `prefer` in the block (a repeat is `LDC-E0201`); each edge is
pinpoint, limits the special norm does not touch stay comparable as before.
### 3. Geneva Convention III of 1949 — defeater without an edge (exemplary)
Package `intl.ihl.geneva_1949` (Geneva Convention III of 1949, prisoners of war), status:
```law
rule TribunalDeterminationEndsPendingStatus(person: Person) defeater {
label en official "Article 5 III: once a competent tribunal has determined the status, it is no longer pending";
when tribunal_denied_pow_status(person);
defeat status_pending_determination(person);
}
```
Exemplary: removing the interim status needs no priority — a defeater beats
a defeasible candidate on its own. An edge would be needed only
by a competing rule wishing to survive under this defeater.
## International standards
### 4. ILO Convention No. 138 — contrary proviso instead of an edge (exemplary)
Package `intl.labour.c138` (ILO Convention No. 138, minimum age), final provisions:
```law
unless convention_binding(s) and revising_convention_provides_otherwise();
```
Exemplary as a form choice: a refusal-exception inside its own rule is
written as a clause, not as a separate “rule + priority” pair. The contrary
form `unless C then not A` generates a defeasible rule with direct priority
— enough when the exception knows only its own rule.
## Measurement and form boundaries
### 5. Grounds by frequency
`reason lex_specialis` — 344, `explicit_exception` — 134, `lex_superior` —
23, `lex_posterior` — 4, `constitutional_exception` — 2. Conclusion: the
later norm as a ground is almost unused by the corpus — later acts more
often rewrite the norm than contest the earlier one by priority.
### 6. Conditional priority unused by the corpus (form boundary)
Conditional `priority … when …` — 0 packages; `priority policy` — 8 in 5
packages (act hierarchies). Rating: not a
wrong choice but an unexercised form — source hierarchy is expressed by
unconditional edges and policies, not by conditions on pairs of
applications.
## Teaching packages
### 7. This section’s examples (runs green)
Package `research.priority.special_over_general` — two defeasible rules + a
`lex_specialis` edge: `check OK`, `law test` 2/2 (Refuted /
Established). Package `research.priority.no_priority_both` — the same rules
without the edge: `check OK`, `law test` 2/2 (Contradiction / Established). The
pair fixes executably: the edge is the only difference between Refuted
and Contradiction.
## Measurements
`priority … prefer A over B` — 761 in 118 packages (a special norm over a
general one, a refusal over a permission); `defeat p(x)` in a defeater —
606 in 78 (“the ground is gone”); bare `unless F` in a rule — 584 in 77 (a
“except in cases…” proviso); `unless F then not p(x)` — in 26 packages (a
refusal proviso); `rule … defeater` — 478 in 75; `priority policy` — 8 in 5
(an act hierarchy); conditional `priority … when …` — 0 packages (the corpus
does not use conditional priority); `except_when` — 1 in 1 (deprecated; in
corpus sources — only in comments).