# Accept admissible evidence ## Intent I want to accept support on checkable grounds of admissibility. The example rules are teaching material, not norms of a force-of-law act. ## Wrong form and why it stays silent ```text title="Incorrect form" // status verified и confidence 0.99 якобы достаточно без проверки подлинности. ``` A number does not authenticate a document. Rule Accept requires status, a pinned check of the same hash, availability, and currency of the document. evidence_status is a projection relation of the policy, not a numeric confidence function. ## Correct form ```law language "law.core" version "0.2"; package recipes.d.r04 version "0.1.0"; namespace "urn:recipe:d-evidence:04"; entity Person; entity Record; relation finding(p: Person) kind empirical; relation eligible(p: Person) kind institutional; relation edge(e: Text, d: Text, link: Text); relation evidence_status(d: Text, state: Text); relation authentic(d: Text, verifier: Text, outcome: Text); relation available(d: Text); relation current(d: Text); relation accepted(e: Text); rule Accept strict { for e: Text; for d: Text; for link: Text; when edge(e,d,link) and evidence_status(d,"verified") and authentic(d,"urn:recipe:verifier","verified") and available(d) and current(d); then accepted(e); } evidence policy Documents { profile "law.core.evidence-policy/0.1"; accepts accepted; protects finding; input edge edge; input status evidence_status; input authentic authentic; input available available; input current current; rule Accept; } rule Use strict { for p: Person; when finding(p); then eligible(p); } ``` ## Frozen execution scene In the table P and Q are different entities of the page, C is a case; full identifiers are pinned in the scenes. | Input on 13.09.2026 (a different date is named in the scene) | Question | Answer | |---|---|---| | all grounds | `truth(eligible(P))` | `TRUE_ONLY` / `COMPUTED` | | only status and confidence | `truth(eligible(P))` | `NEITHER` / `COMPUTED` | | no document term | `truth(eligible(P))` | `NEITHER` / `COMPUTED` | | document not yet known | `truth(eligible(P))` | `NEITHER` / `COMPUTED` | ```law test "all grounds admit the document" { given { context { legal_time @2026-09-13; decision_time @2026-09-13T09:00:00Z; knowledge_time @2026-09-13T09:00:00Z; timezone "UTC"; evidence_policy Documents; } evidence Doc: Record { status verified; observed_at @2026-09-01T08:00:00Z; recorded_at @2026-09-01T09:00:00Z; valid [@2026-09-01, @2026-10-01); content_hash "sha256:aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa"; } support Doc supports finding(entity_ref("urn:recipe:d-evidence:04:p")); verification VDoc { evidence Doc; document_hash "sha256:aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa"; verifier "urn:recipe:verifier"; outcome verified; recorded @2026-09-02T09:00:00Z; } } evaluate truth(eligible(entity_ref("urn:recipe:d-evidence:04:p"))); expect truth_status == TRUE_ONLY; expect evaluation_status == COMPUTED; } ``` ```law test "status and confidence do not admit" { given { context { legal_time @2026-09-13; decision_time @2026-09-13T09:00:00Z; knowledge_time @2026-09-13T09:00:00Z; timezone "UTC"; evidence_policy Documents; } evidence Doc: Record { status verified; observed_at @2026-09-01T08:00:00Z; recorded_at @2026-09-01T09:00:00Z; valid [@2026-09-01, @2026-10-01); content_hash "sha256:aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa"; confidence 0.99; } support Doc supports finding(entity_ref("urn:recipe:d-evidence:04:p")); } evaluate truth(eligible(entity_ref("urn:recipe:d-evidence:04:p"))); expect truth_status == NEITHER; expect evaluation_status == COMPUTED; } ``` ```law test "missing document term blocks admission" { given { context { legal_time @2026-09-13; decision_time @2026-09-13T09:00:00Z; knowledge_time @2026-09-13T09:00:00Z; timezone "UTC"; evidence_policy Documents; } evidence Doc: Record { status verified; observed_at @2026-09-01T08:00:00Z; recorded_at @2026-09-01T09:00:00Z; content_hash "sha256:aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa"; } support Doc supports finding(entity_ref("urn:recipe:d-evidence:04:p")); verification VDoc { evidence Doc; document_hash "sha256:aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa"; verifier "urn:recipe:verifier"; outcome verified; recorded @2026-09-02T09:00:00Z; } } evaluate truth(eligible(entity_ref("urn:recipe:d-evidence:04:p"))); expect truth_status == NEITHER; expect evaluation_status == COMPUTED; } ``` ```law test "future record is unavailable" { given { context { legal_time @2026-09-13; decision_time @2026-09-13T09:00:00Z; knowledge_time @2026-09-13T09:00:00Z; timezone "UTC"; evidence_policy Documents; } evidence Doc: Record { status verified; observed_at @2026-09-01T08:00:00Z; recorded_at @2026-09-20T09:00:00Z; valid [@2026-09-01, @2026-10-01); content_hash "sha256:aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa"; } support Doc supports finding(entity_ref("urn:recipe:d-evidence:04:p")); verification VDoc { evidence Doc; document_hash "sha256:aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa"; verifier "urn:recipe:verifier"; outcome verified; recorded @2026-09-02T09:00:00Z; } } evaluate truth(eligible(entity_ref("urn:recipe:d-evidence:04:p"))); expect truth_status == NEITHER; expect evaluation_status == COMPUTED; } ``` The counterfactual program differs only by the mutation named below; its scene: ```law test "removed authenticity check admits nothing" { given { context { legal_time @2026-09-13; decision_time @2026-09-13T09:00:00Z; knowledge_time @2026-09-13T09:00:00Z; timezone "UTC"; evidence_policy Documents; } evidence Doc: Record { status verified; observed_at @2026-09-01T08:00:00Z; recorded_at @2026-09-01T09:00:00Z; valid [@2026-09-01, @2026-10-01); content_hash "sha256:aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa"; confidence 0.99; } support Doc supports finding(entity_ref("urn:recipe:d-evidence:04:p")); } evaluate truth(eligible(entity_ref("urn:recipe:d-evidence:04:p"))); expect truth_status == TRUE_ONLY; expect evaluation_status == COMPUTED; } ``` ```python >>> import runpy >>> check = runpy.run_path("docs/recipes/d-evidence/resources/check.py") >>> check["check_variant"](https://github.com/arxohq/law/blob/master/docs/recipes/d-evidence/4) 'Д4: контрфактуал подтверждён; lawc = lawref' ``` ```python >>> import runpy >>> check = runpy.run_path("docs/recipes/d-evidence/resources/check.py") >>> check["check_acceptance"](https://github.com/arxohq/law/blob/master/docs/recipes/d-evidence/4) 'Д4: принятие, отчёт и proof проверены; lawc = lawref' ``` ## Counterfactual Diagnostic mutation (check) — LDC-E4702. Original fragment: ```text rule Accept strict ``` Replacement: ```text rule Accept defeasible ``` The paired scenes above pin the change of outcome. ## Boundary Choice of verifier is data of the teaching policy. Cryptography is not executed here: verification is a pinned result of an external check. Refusal of support is not a negation of finding. The counterfactual mutation removes `and authentic(d,"urn:recipe:verifier","verified")`: a document without a check becomes accepted. That is a weakening of the teaching policy, not a built-in privilege of status verified. ## Pitfall A number does not authenticate a document: without a pinned check of the same hash, availability, and currency, support is refused.