# Special rule over general

## Intention

I want to pin the superiority of a special rule explicitly.

A special rule with more conditions but no priority still leaves BOTH.

## Incorrect form and why it stays silent

```text title="Incorrect form"
// У Special больше условий; priority отсутствует.
```

The number of conditions does not create superiority. Without an edge both opposite supports remain.

## Correct form

```law
language "law.core" version "0.2";
package recipes.b.r05 version "0.1.0";
namespace "urn:recipe:b-rules:05";

entity Person;
relation eligible(p: Person);
relation special(p: Person);
relation allowed(p: Person);
rule General defeasible { for p: Person; when eligible(p); then allowed(p); }
rule Special defeasible { for p: Person; when eligible(p) and special(p); then not allowed(p); }
priority SpecialWins { prefer Special over General; reason lex_specialis; }
```

## Frozen execution scene

| Facts and choice | Question | Answer |
|---|---|---|
| special case | `truth(allowed(entity_ref("urn:recipe:b-rules:05:p")))` | `FALSE_ONLY` / `COMPUTED` |
| priority removed | `truth(allowed(entity_ref("urn:recipe:b-rules:05:p")))` | `BOTH` / `COMPUTED` |
| general case | `truth(allowed(entity_ref("urn:recipe:b-rules:05:p")))` | `TRUE_ONLY` / `COMPUTED` |

```law
test "special case" {
    given {
        context {
            legal_time @2026-09-13;
            decision_time @2026-09-13T09:00:00+05:00;
            knowledge_time @2026-09-13T09:00:00+05:00;
            timezone "Asia/Almaty";
        }
        assert eligible(entity_ref("urn:recipe:b-rules:05:p")); assert special(entity_ref("urn:recipe:b-rules:05:p"));
    }
    evaluate truth(allowed(entity_ref("urn:recipe:b-rules:05:p")));
    expect truth_status == FALSE_ONLY;
    expect evaluation_status == COMPUTED;
}
```

```law
test "priority removed" {
    given {
        context {
            legal_time @2026-09-13;
            decision_time @2026-09-13T09:00:00+05:00;
            knowledge_time @2026-09-13T09:00:00+05:00;
            timezone "Asia/Almaty";
        }
        assert eligible(entity_ref("urn:recipe:b-rules:05:p")); assert special(entity_ref("urn:recipe:b-rules:05:p"));
    }
    evaluate truth(allowed(entity_ref("urn:recipe:b-rules:05:p")));
    expect truth_status == BOTH;
    expect evaluation_status == COMPUTED;
}
```

```law
test "general case" {
    given {
        context {
            legal_time @2026-09-13;
            decision_time @2026-09-13T09:00:00+05:00;
            knowledge_time @2026-09-13T09:00:00+05:00;
            timezone "Asia/Almaty";
        }
        assert eligible(entity_ref("urn:recipe:b-rules:05:p"));
    }
    evaluate truth(allowed(entity_ref("urn:recipe:b-rules:05:p")));
    expect truth_status == TRUE_ONLY;
    expect evaluation_status == COMPUTED;
}
```

## Counterfactual

Mutation: `rule General defeasible` → `rule General strict`; rejection LDC-E4105. Scenes that delete a fragment are marked explicitly in the table.

## Boundary

The lex_specialis ground names an accepted priority rule. Automatic proof of nested scopes is not claimed here. Different money values are [Different amounts are not opposites](/recipes/b-rules/values-not-opponents/).

## Pitfall

More conditions do not create superiority: without a priority edge, the special rule leaves BOTH.