# Conflict without a winner

## Intention

I want to keep both opposite supports when there is no priority.

Without a priority edge the result stays BOTH.

## Incorrect form and why it stays silent

```text title="Incorrect form"
// eligible(p) и refused(q) считаются конфликтом allowed(p).
```

Different subjects yield different ground atoms. BOTH arises for one head and one argument tuple, not for any pair of opposite rules.

## Correct form

```law
language "law.core" version "0.2";
package recipes.b.r09 version "0.1.0";
namespace "urn:recipe:b-rules:09";

entity Person;
relation eligible(p: Person);
relation special(p: Person);
relation allowed(p: Person);
relation refused(p: Person);
rule Allow defeasible { for p: Person; when eligible(p); then allowed(p); }
rule Refuse defeasible { for p: Person; when refused(p); then not allowed(p); }
```

## Frozen execution scene

| Facts and choice | Question | Answer |
|---|---|---|
| one bearer | `truth(allowed(entity_ref("urn:recipe:b-rules:09:p")))` | `BOTH` / `COMPUTED` |
| different bearers | `truth(allowed(entity_ref("urn:recipe:b-rules:09:p")))` | `TRUE_ONLY` / `COMPUTED` |
| refusal only | `truth(allowed(entity_ref("urn:recipe:b-rules:09:p")))` | `FALSE_ONLY` / `COMPUTED` |
| no data | `truth(allowed(entity_ref("urn:recipe:b-rules:09:p")))` | `NEITHER` / `COMPUTED` |

```law
test "one bearer" {
    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:09:p")); assert refused(entity_ref("urn:recipe:b-rules:09:p"));
    }
    evaluate truth(allowed(entity_ref("urn:recipe:b-rules:09:p")));
    expect truth_status == BOTH;
    expect evaluation_status == COMPUTED;
}
```

```law
test "different bearers" {
    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:09:p")); assert refused(entity_ref("urn:recipe:b-rules:09:q"));
    }
    evaluate truth(allowed(entity_ref("urn:recipe:b-rules:09:p")));
    expect truth_status == TRUE_ONLY;
    expect evaluation_status == COMPUTED;
}
```

```law
test "refusal only" {
    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 refused(entity_ref("urn:recipe:b-rules:09:p"));
    }
    evaluate truth(allowed(entity_ref("urn:recipe:b-rules:09:p")));
    expect truth_status == FALSE_ONLY;
    expect evaluation_status == COMPUTED;
}
```

```law
test "no data" {
    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";
        }
        
    }
    evaluate truth(allowed(entity_ref("urn:recipe:b-rules:09:p")));
    expect truth_status == NEITHER;
    expect evaluation_status == COMPUTED;
}
```

## Counterfactual

Mutation: `rule Allow defeasible` → `rule Allow`; rejection LDC-E0201. Scenes that delete a fragment are marked explicitly in the table.

## Boundary

BOTH at truth is an ordinary COMPUTED answer; a conflict of positions separately carries UNRESOLVED_NORMATIVE_CONFLICT. A kept conflict does not mean logical explosion.

## Pitfall

Without a priority edge the result stays BOTH; opposite conclusions about different persons do not conflict.