# nb-11 solutions — Appeal: reading, judgment and precedent

*Checkable against `law test packs/examples/language-demo/appeals`
(7 checked, 7 passed). Identifiers and code as written.*

## 1. Broad's premises and the clerk's file

**Answer: `second_vehicle(ann)` plus `permit_eligible(ann)` (via
resident + vehicle_registered); the clerk's file fails the eligibility
premise.**

`BroadReading` fires only when both `second_vehicle(a)` and
`permit_eligible(a)` hold. The test supplies `second_vehicle` directly
and earns eligibility through `resident` + `vehicle_registered` (nb-01's
general rule). A file with the second vehicle alone satisfies Narrow's
single premise instead — which is why the same fact yields TRUE_ONLY
under one selection and FALSE_ONLY under the other. The reading selects
the burden of proof.

## 2. Why an issue instead of FALSE_ONLY

**Answer: FALSE_ONLY would be Narrow's answer, and no reading was
selected — the engine refuses to pick one silently.**

`INTERPRETATION_REQUIRED` means the `SecondVehicle` group got no
selection in context, so neither `NarrowReading` nor `BroadReading` may
fire. FALSE_ONLY is what the `narrow reading` test derives *after*
choosing Narrow; without a choice there is no derivation at all, hence
an issue rather than any truth value. `exactly_one` makes the selection
mandatory case input.

## 3. Why NEITHER while waiting for judgment

**Answer: nothing refutes the waiver — the hardship premise is simply
unsupplied, and only the HearingOfficer can supply it.**

FALSE_ONLY would need a derived negation (as Narrow derives `not
second_permit`). Here `HardshipWaiver`'s `hardship(a)` premise has no
support either way: no adjudicated judgment is on record, and desk
facts cannot satisfy a judgment relation. So the conclusion is NEITHER
with `evaluation_status == REQUIRES_JUDGMENT` — the case waits on the
hearing officer's decision, not on more desk evidence.

## 4. Shared ground and distinguishing fact in Bob's case

**Answer: shared domain fact `lives_in_city(bob)`; distinguishing
defendant fact `second_home(bob)`; `SecondHomeNotResident` decides.**

Bob matches P1's domain (`lives_in_city`) but carries the extra
defendant-side factor `second_home`, which Ann's facts lack. That extra
factor distinguishes P1 away, so the precedent's outcome does not
carry — and the general strict rule `SecondHomeNotResident` fires on
`second_home(bob)` to derive `not resident_for_permit(bob)`:
FALSE_ONLY. Same domain, one extra fact, opposite outcome.

## How to verify

```sh
law test packs/examples/language-demo/appeals
```

Expected: `итого: 7 проверено, 7 прошли, 0 не прошли, 0 не исполнены`.
The deciding tests are `broad reading`, `narrow reading`,
`no selection — open question`, `judgment not yet rendered`,
`judgment rendered`, `precedent followed`, and
`precedent distinguished`.