# A fact established by a court

## Intention

I want to present court-established intent as a case fact while keeping its origin.

Intent arrives as a presented fact with its origin; it is not computed.

## Incorrect form and why it stays silent

```text title="Incorrect form"
assert intent_established(p) { origin adjudicated; judgment { authority Court; } }
```

A judgment object is not expressed by this surface. origin adjudicated is written separately; for an empirical relation this is the origin of the fact, not an automatic check of the authority.

## Correct form

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

entity Person;
relation intent_established(p: Person) kind empirical;
relation intent_element(p: Person);
rule Intent strict { for p: Person; when intent_established(p); then intent_element(p); }
```

## Frozen execution scene

| Facts and choice | Question | Answer |
|---|---|---|
| 1. intent established by a court | `intent_element` | `TRUE_ONLY` / `COMPUTED` |
| 2. same atom introduced by a party | `intent_element` | `TRUE_ONLY` / `COMPUTED` |
| 3. fact not presented | `intent_element` | `NEITHER` / `COMPUTED` |

```law
test "intent established by court" {
    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 intent_established(entity_ref("urn:recipe:z-interpretations:05:p")) { origin adjudicated; }
    }
    evaluate truth(intent_element(entity_ref("urn:recipe:z-interpretations:05:p")));
    expect truth_status == TRUE_ONLY;
    expect evaluation_status == COMPUTED;

}
```

```law
test "same atom entered by party" {
    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 intent_established(entity_ref("urn:recipe:z-interpretations:05:p")) { origin case_input; }
    }
    evaluate truth(intent_element(entity_ref("urn:recipe:z-interpretations:05:p")));
    expect truth_status == TRUE_ONLY;
    expect evaluation_status == COMPUTED;

}
```

```law
test "fact not presented" {
    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(intent_element(entity_ref("urn:recipe:z-interpretations:05:p")));
    expect truth_status == NEITHER;
    expect evaluation_status == COMPUTED;
    expect judgment_requests(0);
}
```



## Counterfactual

Sidecar mutation: `origin adjudicated;` → `origin adjudicated; judgment { authority Court; }`; expected `LDC-E0201`. Additional scenes with fragment deletion are marked in the table; the outcome is checked by both evaluators.

## Boundary

For an assessment delegated to an authority, use [A judgment on a live branch](/recipes/z-interpretations/live-judgment/); for checking the answering authority, [A judge's answer with authority and form](/recipes/z-interpretations/judge-answer/). An ordinary empirical relation also accepts case_input: the engine does not prove that the fact was actually established by a court.

## Pitfall

Intent is a fact, not a computed judgment. The scenes compare an adjudicated origin, a party-supplied origin, and absence of the fact; the first two give the same truth with different origins.