Markdown for LLMs
Accept admissible evidence
The source Markdown for this article. Copy it into your assistant or download it as a text file.
# 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.