# Set sufficiency of support

## Intent

I want to establish an issue only on suitable accepted support.

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"
// Подлинного документа о другом лице достаточно для finding(P).
```

The teaching standard is at least one admissible support about the same person. The policy joins the proposition argument with a document field. The document name and the confidence number do not replace that join.

## Correct form

```law
language "law.core" version "0.2";
package recipes.d.r07 version "0.1.0";
namespace "urn:recipe:d-evidence:07";

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);
relation subject_of(d: Text, p: Person);
relation about(e: Text, p: Person);
rule Accept strict {
    for e: Text; for d: Text; for link: Text; for p: Person;
    when edge(e,d,link) and evidence_status(d,"verified")
      and authentic(d,"urn:recipe:verifier","verified") and available(d) and current(d) and subject_of(d,p) and about(e,p);
    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;
    field person subject_of; arg 0 about;
    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 |
|---|---|---|
| person matched | `truth(eligible(P))` | `TRUE_ONLY` / `COMPUTED` |
| document about another person | `truth(eligible(P))` | `NEITHER` / `COMPUTED` |
| person not named in the document | `truth(eligible(P))` | `NEITHER` / `COMPUTED` |
| nothing presented | `truth(eligible(P))` | `NEITHER` / `COMPUTED` |

```law
test "matching person admits support" {
    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"; person entity_ref("urn:recipe:d-evidence:07:p");
}
support Doc supports finding(entity_ref("urn:recipe:d-evidence:07: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:07:p")));
    expect truth_status == TRUE_ONLY;
    expect evaluation_status == COMPUTED;

}
```

```law
test "support about another person rejected" {
    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"; person entity_ref("urn:recipe:d-evidence:07:q");
}
support Doc supports finding(entity_ref("urn:recipe:d-evidence:07: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:07:p")));
    expect truth_status == NEITHER;
    expect evaluation_status == COMPUTED;

}
```

```law
test "unnamed person 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";
}
support Doc supports finding(entity_ref("urn:recipe:d-evidence:07: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:07:p")));
    expect truth_status == NEITHER;
    expect evaluation_status == COMPUTED;

}
```

```law
test "no support leaves neither" {
    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;
        }

    }
    evaluate truth(eligible(entity_ref("urn:recipe:d-evidence:07:p")));
    expect truth_status == NEITHER;
    expect evaluation_status == COMPUTED;

}
```

The counterfactual program differs only by the mutation named below; its scene:

```law
test "missing person match rejects support" {
    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"; person entity_ref("urn:recipe:d-evidence:07:q");
}
support Doc supports finding(entity_ref("urn:recipe:d-evidence:07: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:07: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/7)
'Д7: контрфактуал подтверждён; lawc = lawref'
```

One document is presented for two persons: the decision is taken on each support separately.

```law
test "one document accepted and rejected per target" {
    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"; person entity_ref("urn:recipe:d-evidence:07:p");
}
support Doc supports finding(entity_ref("urn:recipe:d-evidence:07:p"));
support Doc supports finding(entity_ref("urn:recipe:d-evidence:07:q"));
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:07:q")));
    expect truth_status == NEITHER;
    expect evaluation_status == COMPUTED;

}
```

```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/7)
'Д7: принятие, отчёт и proof проверены; lawc = lawref'
```

## Counterfactual

Diagnostic mutation (check) — LDC-E4705.

Original fragment:

```text
profile "law.core.evidence-policy/0.1";
```

Replacement:

```text
profile "law.core.evidence-policy/9.9";
```

The paired scenes above pin the change of outcome.

## Boundary

This is sufficiency of “at least one suitable support”, not a universal “beyond reasonable doubt” standard. Weights and majority are not covered here. An authority decision under delegation is [Accept what an authority established](/recipes/d-evidence/adjudicated-fact/); consequences of non liquet are [Require an issue to be established within a deadline](/recipes/d-evidence/burden-duty/). Absence of support leaves NEITHER.

The counterfactual mutation removes `and subject_of(d,p)` from Accept: a document about another person starts confirming the requested fact. Slot arg 0 binds the question to the support, and field person to the document; both are needed.

## Pitfall

The teaching standard is at least one admissible support about the same person: the policy joins the proposition argument with a document field, and neither the document name nor the confidence number replaces that join.