# A court reading on top of the baseline

## Intention

I want to replace a rule inside a new reading while keeping the baseline.

A new reading inherits the baseline and replaces one rule; the baseline itself is untouched.

## Incorrect form and why it stays silent

```law title="Incorrect form"
interpretation CourtReading extends Baseline { status binding; include CourtRule; }
```

Without exclude the positive support is inherited: on the same facts, Contradiction. Exclusion changes the composition of CourtReading, not Baseline.

## Correct form

```law
language "law.core" version "0.2";
package recipes.z.r02 version "0.1.0";
namespace "urn:recipe:z-interpretations:02";

source Standard { kind standard; jurisdiction "none"; }
edition Edition of Standard { language ru; officiality official; in_force [@2026-01-01, infinity); }
fragment Clause in Edition { kind paragraph; locator "1"; text ru official "Учебная норма допускает два прочтения."; }
entity Person;
relation registered(p: Person);
relation accepted(p: Person);
relation review(p: Person);
rule BaseRule strict { for p: Person; when registered(p); then accepted(p); }
rule CourtRule strict { for p: Person; when registered(p); then not accepted(p); }
rule Review strict { for p: Person; when registered(p); then review(p); }
interpretation Baseline of Clause { status reviewed; include BaseRule; }
interpretation CourtReading extends Baseline { status binding; include CourtRule; exclude BaseRule; }
interpretation_group Meaning { alternatives Baseline, CourtReading; selection any_of; }
```

## Frozen execution scene

| Facts and choice | Question | Answer |
|---|---|---|
| 1. baseline chosen | `accepted` | `TRUE_ONLY` / `COMPUTED` |
| 2. court reading chosen | `accepted` | `FALSE_ONLY` / `COMPUTED` |
| 3. court reading without exclude | `accepted` | `BOTH` / `COMPUTED` |
| 4. without a choice the disputed norm stays silent | `accepted` | `NEITHER` / `COMPUTED` |
| 5. undisputed review remains | `review` | `TRUE_ONLY` / `COMPUTED` |

```law
test "base reading chosen" {
    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";
            interpretation Baseline;
        }
        assert registered(entity_ref("urn:recipe:z-interpretations:02:p"));
    }
    evaluate truth(accepted(entity_ref("urn:recipe:z-interpretations:02:p")));
    expect truth_status == TRUE_ONLY;
    expect evaluation_status == COMPUTED;

}
```

```law
test "court reading chosen" {
    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";
            interpretation CourtReading;
        }
        assert registered(entity_ref("urn:recipe:z-interpretations:02:p"));
    }
    evaluate truth(accepted(entity_ref("urn:recipe:z-interpretations:02:p")));
    expect truth_status == FALSE_ONLY;
    expect evaluation_status == COMPUTED;

}
```

```law
test "court reading without exclusion" {
    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";
            interpretation CourtReading;
        }
        assert registered(entity_ref("urn:recipe:z-interpretations:02:p"));
    }
    evaluate truth(accepted(entity_ref("urn:recipe:z-interpretations:02:p")));
    expect truth_status == BOTH;
    expect evaluation_status == COMPUTED;

}
```

```law
test "disputed rule silent without choice" {
    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 registered(entity_ref("urn:recipe:z-interpretations:02:p"));
    }
    evaluate truth(accepted(entity_ref("urn:recipe:z-interpretations:02:p")));
    expect truth_status == NEITHER;
    expect evaluation_status == COMPUTED;

}
```

```law
test "undisputed consideration stands" {
    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 registered(entity_ref("urn:recipe:z-interpretations:02:p"));
    }
    evaluate truth(review(entity_ref("urn:recipe:z-interpretations:02:p")));
    expect truth_status == TRUE_ONLY;
    expect evaluation_status == COMPUTED;

}
```



## Counterfactual

Sidecar mutation: `exclude BaseRule;` → `exclude Missing;`; expected `LDC-E1205`. Additional scenes with fragment deletion are marked in the table; the outcome is checked by both evaluators.

## Boundary

exclude is local to the reading's composition. Including undisputed Review in a reading would remove it from the base theory; a binding status alone does not select a reading.

## Pitfall

Without exclude, the inherited positive support and the new negative rule meet on the same facts: Contradiction. The baseline itself stays positive.